The philosophical debate over the power and purpose of the state is ancient, but COVID-19 provided a new context for the discussion. Responding to a pandemic requires a robust state and the emergency can be used to justify expanding state power. While such an expansion can be warranted, people should resist setting aside their critical faculties in the heat of a crisis.

One concern is that a pandemic (or any crisis) will be used to infringe upon liberty without addressing the crisis. While a crisis often claims reason as an early victim, the expansion of state power to protect us should be carefully considered in terms of both the loss of liberty and its effectiveness in addressing the crisis. An expansion that does not make us safer is unjustified as we would give up liberty in return for nothing. If the expansion of power makes us safer, then we should still weigh the benefits against the cost, although this assessment will vary. For example, someone who is very afraid of a threat will have a different assessment than someone who thinks it is minor or even a hoax. As another example, someone who values one liberty (say the right to keep and bear arms) will see things differently from someone who does not value that liberty.  While a rational assessment will always have a subjective element, a good faith evaluation is critical. Unfortunately, misinformation and disinformation come into play in such assessments. And, of course, emotions will be factors.

While a rational assessment of expanding the power of state is always important, it is even more important during a crisis. This is because people will be heavily influenced by the strong emotions arising from the crisis and politicians will be trying to exploit this opportunity to expand their power. Businesses and individuals will also try to profit from the expansion of power, often at the expense of others. For example, if the state imposed mandatory tracking during a pandemic, tech companies would be eager to exploit this financial opportunity.

It can be objected that during a crisis there is no time for rational, objective assessment and attempting to do so would be foolish and wrong. While a crisis usually requires immediate action, if there is time to expand state power, then there is time to think about whether to do so. I am not advocating dithering about in pointless debate but advocating giving due consideration to the expansion of state power. It would be foolish and wrong to act without thought.

During the last pandemic, the United States suffered because it did not expand the power of the state in a rational manner. Our leaders knew a crisis was on the way, but many of them delayed, hesitated and took small steps rather than acting aggressively. This was a case where speed was important and the failures were not due to a needless expansion of state power, but a failure to exercise power effectively and decisively.

In addition to carefully considering the expansion of the state’s power, one must also consider the duration of the expansion. An expansion of power that might be justified in a crisis is likely to be unwarranted and unnecessary when the crisis ends. Since rulers are rarely inclined to give up an expansion to their power, it is essential to place a clearly defined and automatic limit on any expansion of power. As a crisis might last longer than predicted, there also need to be rules for how they can be renewed. Otherwise, these expansions can become permanent to the detriment of the people.

There is also the concern that expansion of power can create bloat, such as new positions and entire departments. Such bloat can waste resources and cause inefficiency, something is problematic even in normal times. Bureaucracies tend to grow over time rather than shrink, so the expansion must be limited. That said, there is also a risk in reducing the state too much so that it will be unable to address a future crisis (which is what Musk and Trump seem to be doing as this is being written). The challenge is finding the right balance between being too big and too small; to get it just right. As people often discount the future and engage in wishful thinking, it is challenging to convince people to spend resources to address a crisis that might occur or even one that will occur but at an unknown time. Thus, the expansion and reduction of the state should be carefully considered based on a rational assessment of likely future need. Unfortunately, this approach usually does not win elections.

While expanding state power to respond to a crisis is what people most often think of, a state can also respond by reducing its power. For example, rulers might weaken or suspend regulations or protections for citizens. On the positive side, weakening or even suspending some regulations can be beneficial. For example, during the next pandemic there will be a need to rapidly expand hospitals, so it would be reasonable to suspend or weaken some rules that would impede this. As another example, a need for test kits and treatments can justify weakening or suspending some regulations that would slow things down. Doing so is not without risks but can be justified as one justifies how ambulances drive: going fast and breaking the normal traffic rules creates a danger, but this is supposed to be outweighed by the need for speed.

Just as the expansion of the state must be justified, assessed and kept on a time limit, the same applies to reducing the state. There are obvious concerns that weakening or suspending regulations could do more harm than good. There is also the concern that the unethical will exploit the situation in harmful ways. For example, an unethical pharmaceutical company might exploit weakened regulations to maximize profits. As another example, tech companies might exploit the weakening of privacy laws to gather data they can monetize in harmful ways. Planning for likely crises is what good leaders do; perhaps some will emerge in the next pandemic.