[HKH2]

> Sorry, but the difference between "rule" and "control" seems more like a play on words and less like a coherent argument. 'Rule' is a neutral word. I meant it in the way that a ruler generally tries to do good for their subjects because on some level they have to. 'Control' is negative and implies no concern for subjects because the subjects have no recourse.

> Also, "divide et impera" might be reasonable if you are in the business of ancient roman foreign policy but I would need to be convinced that it holds true for the inner workings of modern democracies.

If you've been awake in the past 3 years you will have seen obvious government overreach. You can justify it if you want to, but it's clearly gone way beyond public health concerns.

> I don't have the feeling that the people around me are particularly afraid all the time and if they are, it leads to them wanting change instead of being paralysed.

I'll assume you're American. What percentage of Americans do you think use psychiatric medication or drugs (including alcohol) on a regular basis?