"totalitarianism" as Hannah Arendt, among others, meant it, hasn't existed on earth outside of marginal pockets like North Korea for decades...

The Chinese Communist Party retains all of the apparatus and legal structure necessary to exercise classical totalitarianism. They have chosen not to exercise those powers in the most obvious and brutal manner on a regular basis since Deng Xiaoping, and they might be a bit rusty, but they retain the capability and still use the surveillance capabilities. When they need they can still use the more brutal aspects, right down to the practice of sending a bill to the family of one executed for the cost of the bullet.

More ominously for myself and other US citizens, laws passed under Bush after 911 have put similar capabilities on the books for the US Government. Obama, who taught constitutional law, has made no effort to repeal those laws. That they have not been broadly applied to the average citizen is small comfort.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

I think there's a useful distinction to be made between a tyranny that tells you what you can't do and then leaves you alone as long as you don't do it (think Singapore, or most historical monarchs), and a tyranny that tells you what you must do and then never leaves you alone again (think North Korea or the British Empire).

Of course, the line is blurred because if the latter is sufficiently incompetent or rules a sufficiently technologically backwards jurisdiction, it will look a lot like the latter. I'm sure the counter-reformation would have liked to impose a totalitarian rule on their lands. But that just wasn't gonna happen given technological capabilities at the time.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.