A case for totalitarianism

[Night FM]

While I don't consider this a serious proposal, these are my thoughts on how totalitarianism could have beneficial social effects in the right situations. It's purely a devil's advocate argument.

Everyone is treated as equal and human under the law, but obviously people aren't equal in terms of other qualities. As an example, the type of people who identify as "incels" are obviously defective in most if not all redeeming human traits. Whether this is a product of bad genetics, bad environment, bad character, or a combination of multiple factors, I'm not sure, and it is probably multifaceted.

But, regardless, I don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do. If I had the authority, I would be tempted to simply have them executed, or at least have all of their human rights removed and them reduced to the status of second-class citizens, possibly allowing for them to perform forced labor. This would all be done legally and on the books, no one would be committing any vigilante violence against incels, white supremacists, and the like. They would simply de-classified as human altogether, and legally it wouldn't be any different than putting rabid animals to sleep.

So while totalitarianism ultimately would do social harm than good, I can see it having social utility in a scenario like this. The subhuman state of existence that some individuals reside in simply isn't something a better human would consider worth living, so if society was slightly less liberal in their application of the definition of "human rights", it might make the world a cleaner place, provided that it was able to only be applied in scenarios like this (e.x. exterminating incels, white supremacists, and other undesirables), rather than in the whole context of society.

Edited 17 hours ago by Night FM

[MigL]

Sure B Mussolini  introduced pensions, and systems so that trains ran on time; but at what cost to the people of Italy and Europe?
It doesn't mean anyone wants to be ruled by a fascist dictator; do you ?

[Night FM]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sure B Mussolini  introduced pensions, and systems so that trains ran on time; but at what cost to the people of Italy and Europe?
It doesn't mean anyone wants to be ruled by a fascist dictator; do you ?

True. I'm just armchair imagining what I would do if I was a dictator, but realistically it will never happen and overall society would fare worse under a dictator. I also like taking ideas about fascism and turning them against people who identify as fascists (e.x. classifying the racists as the undesirables rather than whichever race they happen to dislike).

Though I'm still pondering the idea that "human rights" shouldn't be automatically assumed simply on the basis of being "homo sapien". If an incel or a racist hates women or black people, for example, then IMO they lack redeeming human qualities, since there is more than enough knowledge that women and people of all races are equal in terms of their humanity. So for a person who is legally an "adult" to be able to maintain such as view would require a serious depravity in humanity, and would lead me to view them as less than human despite their biology.

Edited 17 hours ago by Night FM

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Night FM said:

don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do.

But where do you draw the line? Who decides? it’s an arbitrary decision, and you end up “removing” people that just rub you the wrong way. 

[Harrot]

The problem with the reasoning : Being a good human consist of being so or so, therefore i need to kill the others, is that doing so i pretend that i can or other peoples can kill me because i am so or so or he is so or so. Of course it can not have a beneficial effect on society to kill poeples this way because poeple know each other, love each other and have famillly relationship  that are independant of the reason we would need to kill each other.  I you kill my father because he think the wrong way, i am not happy and say : Oh yes, now we have a fine society !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

As an example, the type of people who identify as "incels" are obviously defective in most if not all redeeming human traits. Whether this is a product of bad genetics, bad environment, bad character, or a combination of multiple factors, I'm not sure

 

How many people would be left alive in your hypothetical fascist nation, if everyone with some kind of prejudice or character flaw or passing through a stage of involuntary celibacy or having some genetic flaw were handled as you so delicately put it...

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

simply disallow them to exist as they currently do.

Perhaps the judgment would be also extended to people who propose mass murder of the "defective" in online forums.  That would not be so great for you, would it?

You put me in mind of Koko in The Mikado, who has "a little list" of people he finds undesirable and would gladly execute.  The list includes lady novelists and people who breathe peppermints in your face.  

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

If an incel or a racist hates women or black people, for example, then IMO they lack redeeming human qualities, since there is more than enough knowledge that women and people of all races are equal in terms of their humanity. So for a person who is legally an "adult" to be able to maintain such as view would require a serious depravity in humanity, and would lead me to view them as less than human despite their biology.

Most bigots suffer from ignorance and lack of social connection (especially to diverse segments of society) more than a depraved mind.  It may feel satisfying to dismiss them as depraved, but I don't see the social science evidence to support that.  

Also, irony alert - you speak of viewing a group as less than human, while condemning others who view certain groups as less than human.  This is a cognitive dissonance you might want to fix.

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

Everyone is treated as equal and human under the law, but obviously people aren't equal in terms of other qualities.

Equality under the law is simple: no individual has immunity from crime; the same criteria of proof apply to their trial and the same guidelines for sentencing are followed in every case. 

When it comes to  'other qualities', however, you'd need some metrics and standards to decide how much of each quality each person possesses and what each quality is worth. What measurement are you using, and what is the standard you apply? 

 

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

While I don't consider this a serious proposal, these are my thoughts on how totalitarianism could have beneficial social effects in the right situations. It's purely a devil's advocate argument.

Everyone is treated as equal and human under the law, but obviously people aren't equal in terms of other qualities. As an example, the type of people who identify as "incels" are obviously defective in most if not all redeeming human traits. Whether this is a product of bad genetics, bad environment, bad character, or a combination of multiple factors, I'm not sure, and it is probably multifaceted.

But, regardless, I don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do. If I had the authority, I would be tempted to simply have them executed, or at least have all of their human rights removed and them reduced to the status of second-class citizens, possibly allowing for them to perform forced labor. This would all be done legally and on the books, no one would be committing any vigilante violence against incels, white supremacists, and the like. They would simply de-classified as human altogether, and legally it wouldn't be any different than putting rabid animals to sleep.

So while totalitarianism ultimately would do social harm than good, I can see it having social utility in a scenario like this. The subhuman state of existence that some individuals reside in simply isn't something a better human would consider worth living, so if society was slightly less liberal in their application of the definition of "human rights", it might make the world a cleaner place, provided that it was able to only be applied in scenarios like this (e.x. exterminating incels, white supremacists, and other undesirables), rather than in the whole context of society.

A couple of points. One is this would not have to be a totalitarian state, just an authoritarian one. Totalitarianism means the control, typically by manipulation, surveillance and coercion, of all facets of society. An extant example is N Korea. What you describe could be any kind of "strongman" rule, like that of Franco or Mussolini - or perhaps even Trump, as the authors of Project 2025 seem to hope.

The more important point, though is that what you outline ignores a blindingly obvious fact: that the behaviour of human beings is partly driven by circumstances and can change when those circumstances change. A "murderer" does not automatically go on murdering if released from prison. It all depends on what led to the first murder. An "incel" , who of course is not even a criminal, is someone with an unhealthy psychological condition at a particular stage in their life. That can change. I feel sure a lot of incels simply grow out of it - it all seems very feeble and adolescent. But under your proposal they would all be dead.

Your proposal to treat groups of human beings as subhuman, on the basis of applying fixed labels to them, is not only morally repugnant (and deeply unChristian, as I feel sure you must be aware) but also ignorant of actual human behaviour. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

But, regardless, I don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do. If I had the authority, I would be tempted to simply have them executed, or at least have all of their human rights removed and them reduced to the status of second-class citizens, possibly allowing for them to perform forced labor. This would all be done legally and on the books, no one would be committing any vigilante violence against incels, white supremacists, and the like. They would simply de-classified as human altogether, and legally it wouldn't be any different than putting rabid animals to sleep.

 

Wouldn't this make you some kind of "Incel +" that should be executed?  (Right after me perhaps for suggesting this)

[Harrot]

What's more, the proposal to eliminate “less human” undesirables, in the sense of “less good”, suffers from the bias of thinking that the “standard human” is good, and that only some of them contradict this behavior. In fact, when you look at the whole history of mankind, it's exactly the opposite: a violent, self-centered, xenophobic being that ravages everything it can.  Only Christians (and some other minority) argues for a different kind of behavior that defines what a good man is.

So, if the proposal is to use the Christian definition of the good man, in order to legitimize the murder of the “bad man”, this contradicts the Christian rules, which say exactly the opposite: Love your enemy, let the other kill you, and so on: Because real life is elsewhere, not on earth.

But if the proposal is to use the evolutionary definition, i.e. the “good man” definition of material life, which says that “the best” remains in the end, we have nothing new.

Animals fight for life and compete, leading in some cases to intraspecific killing. Here the proposal is to extend this behavior at a much larger scale... loosing probably a lot of genetic diversity because behaviour is probably not only linked to education.

However, I see a difference with the natural process: here you are proposing a selection that could be called “intelligent design” and the “god” who would do the designing would be ... you. Sounds frightening for the survival of humanity.

Joking aside: look at what intelligent human design has come up with :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Harrot