Harry Barnes has responded to my earlier post in which I, as he puts it, accused him of intellectual inconsistency. He says he isn't inconsistent because he'd like to achieve his goals by democratic means.
I replied, in the comments of his post, as follows:
Thanks for responding.I think this debate boils down to little more than this: some totalitarians dislike being called totalitarian. That's too bad.
It depends what you understand totalitarianism to be. Here are three mainstream definitions:
Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism is a term employed by some political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior."
Webster's: " 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority "
Encarta: "Totalitarianism, in political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state."
Your first two proposals fit these definitions, I'm afraid. You lay claim to control of the totality of my being, especially with respect to the transport proposal. It makes no difference that you say you want to achieve totalitarianism by democratic means.
I've noticed in discussions with some on the left that they associate totalitarianism with violence. That association has happened but it's not intrinsic to totalitarianism - it's more that totalitarianism, democratic or not, winds up needing it to function - and repression occurs in regimes that are not totalitarian, such as authoritarian ones.
I'm sorry, you are inconsistent.
UPDATE: Also see The Thunderdragon and Matt Wardman.