[r12343a_19]

Because the trick is to boil the frog slowly. Even the most dense simpleton understands that having no rights means having no rights.

But if you have some rights, starting next Tuesday, and the government keeps extending the start date, you have something to look up to.

Of course, it will be postponed forever.

[clnq]

> Even the most dense simpleton understands that having no rights means having no rights.

I understand this is exaggerated, but I'm not sure it's true. Plenty of people argue all the time that taking away their own rights is not a problem:

"if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about",

"if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy",

"we need to give up freedoms for a greater good",

"the government knows best",

"if the government is watching, everyone will behave better",

"if you can't trust the government, who can you trust?",

"the founding fathers didn't prescribe freedom X",

"only terrorists need freedom Y" (like privacy),

"if you give people too much freedom, they will abuse it",

"if you don't like it, you can leave the country",

and the pandemic favourite — "it's only temporary", despite ample evidence in history that temporary stripping of freedoms is almost never temporary.

I don't know... I've heard too many self-sabotaging arguments for stripping away freedoms from ordinary people that perhaps I'm convinced a good chunk of "the most dense simpletons" would be fine with it. Maybe they'd champion it if the right political party proposed the removal of freedoms.

[nkjnlknlk]

> and the pandemic favourite — "it's only temporary", despite ample evidence in history that temporary stripping of freedoms is almost never temporary.

Which pandemic freedoms have not been restored? I'd argue we've moved on to pretending COVID does not exist any way.

[clnq]

While many of our freedoms have been restored, it is important to recognize that we have also normalized certain forms of government overreach, which may have lasting implications on our liberties in the future. Some of the measures that were introduced include:

- Travel restrictions

- Device-level and biological surveillance

- Mandatory injections/vaccinations

- Suppression of dissent

- Stigmatizing individuals with pre-existing conditions

- Disallowing human contact

- Imposing what is effectively house arrest on a very large part of the population (self isolating)

These unprecedented measures have significantly eroded personal autonomy, and, unfortunately, we have not seen much pushback against them.

I am not necessarily arguing against the effectiveness of these measures in dealing with global crises. However, it is crucial that we remain vigilant and aware of the potential "boiling frog" situation with our freedoms. As a result of the normalization of these measures, we may find ourselves facing mandatory isolation, testing, tracking, surveillance, and travel restrictions more frequently in the future.

Indeed, if we were to look back just a decade ago, the idea of governments exercising such extensive control would have seemed unimaginable to many. Now, I can imagine governments doing this again, even for crises other than global pandemics.

[nkjnlknlk]

We have always had:

- travel restrictions - mandatory vaccinations - suppression of dissent - stigmatizing individuals

To assert otherwise is ahistorical IMO.

It's unclear to me what device-level and biological surveillance mean. A decade ago Steven Harper was Prime Minister and tried to infringe upon our freedoms much more frequently.

[clnq]

We should recognize that, as you mention, there have always been some limits on our freedoms. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that the pandemic has intensified those measures to a degree we haven't seen before. The issue isn't their existence, but the scale and intensity at which they've been applied.

Device-level and biological surveillance stem from contact tracing and mandatory testing, and the government keeps records from both. In countries with GDPR laws where people must consent to their personal data being retained, the retention periods were often quite long, sometimes spanning decades. In my view, this constitutes surveillance, and the collected data could later be used by governments and courts.

I don't intend to argue that this surveillance has negatively impacted society so far — surely contact tracing and people self-reporting their illness have helped model Covid's spread. Comparing this data to immunization and mandatory testing records was probably useful as well. However, this data has been collected, is now stored, and is accessible to governments, and we didn't have much say in the matter, individually or collectively.

It's important to question the long-term impact these actions will have on our liberties and whether the long-term costs justify the short-term benefits. For instance, many specialists believe that the pandemic would have unfolded more or less the same way, regardless of whether we compromised our privacy and freedoms. Of course, opinions vary, and it's a heated topic right now. But we must monitor it in the long run. Reflecting on the pandemic events currently, my stance is that we have eroded our freedoms more than necessary for effective control of the virus.