[timm22]

Not necesarily. They can lead as in the case of our society to a representative republic, with staggered elections checks and balances etc.

I agree, to the extent that the checks and balances include the idea of limited, delegated government powers.

If we do not include that idea, the case is different. For example, let's say that instead of granting the government only limited, specific powers, we accept that the state may act on things that have public consequence, for the good of society. Since anything can be shown to have a consequence on society, anything falls under the scope of government control. This is the very definition of totalitarianism.

Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a dictatorial totalitarianism. It might even be argued to be a benign totalitarianism. But if every facet of life falls under the scrutiny of the state, it IS totalitarianism.

[Cacique]

By your definition we already live in a totalitarian society anyway. We are all under both private and state surveillance at every moment of our lives, we are tracked via our cellphones, our credit cards, bank accounts etc, ISP numbers on ouir computers and cookies. etc.. It is the consequence of living in a modern plugged in society. Everything we do is with modern technology an intrusion into our autonomy. A gaucho on the Pampas of my native Argentina who practically lives in the 19th century (even though the govt. is authoritarian) has in effect more freedom than I do.

My whole point in my argument is simply that all actions DO have consquences. Even bening acts that we think are nobody's business have public policy implications. To argue otherwise is to live in a utopian dreamland.