Let's play this out for mask wearing:
Top Left: Top doctors asking people to wear masks
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks
Bottom Right: People who occasionally use masks, or alternatives, bandanas, etc.
Top Right: People who don't want to use masks because of freedom.
Top Left: People who want to throw anyone who isn't wearing a mask in jail.
Bottom Left: People who are wearing masks everywhere, including situations where it doesn't make sense to, because that's what the rules say.
Bottom Right: People who wear masks when it makes sense to wear them, and don't wear masks when it makes sense not to, even if that isn't what the rules say (for example, not wearing a mask when taking a walk outdoors where you can easily social distance, even if the letter of the rules in your area say to wear a mask whenever you leave your house).
Top Right: People who insist on pointing out that the rules on mask wearing are arbitrary and don't allow for common sense, even as they wear masks when common sense says you ought to.
You mean "... as they don't wear masks ..." , correct? Otherwise I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
No. Wearing masks when common sense says you ought to, in the current situation, is independent-minded, not conformist. (For example, consider: the same person would have been wearing a mask before any guidance or rules were issued about it at all, since it took quite a while for such guidance and rules to catch up with the actual situation. A Bottom Left person would have been waiting for some guidance or rules to be issued. A Top Left person would have been calling out the mask wearer for overreacting, after all, things can't possibly be that bad if no guidance or rules have been issued requiring people to wear masks, right?)
> I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.
Strictly speaking, yes, those could also count as Top Right, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that Top Right does not require stupidity.
Being an enforcer or a rule breaker is very much dependent upon what the rules are.
This gets left out of so many conversations, and is a very important point.
The essay touches on it a little with the slavery bit, but I feel like the rest of the essay downplays it.
Maybe abstract, theoretical sense. But adults already hold pretty concrete opinions on most rules and an aggressive person's obedience or defiance is dictated by the person's agreement. Also, humans can be opportunists and see enforcement or defiance as a means of grabbing or welding power & influence.
There's ample evidence of this in action. The police selectively enforce laws all the time. Or the neighbor that calls the city to complain that you're violating zoning by having too many cars while they, themselves have an illegal fence and refuse to deal with it. Authoritarians by nature do not like it when the rules apply to them, but love enforcing them on others.