How does that work when the law forbids you from assembling to effect political change?

It is funny how in these kinds of discusions it is always "you guys have excesive amount of A and not enought of B, whilst we have a perfect balace of A and B" instead of "you value A more than we do, but we like B more".

For a bit of historical perspective, this was the same criticism made of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Good thing MLK didn't try to follow your advice.

Individual rights are just that -- not rights, not privileges and thus not subject to debate, thought they are of course frequently violated by totalitarian states to a greater or a somewhat lesser degree.

I know this is controversial, because the current rule is that you are not supposed to say that your moral system is right and the other guys system is wrong, but A is A and Freedom is not slavery, no matter how much that is yelled from the tops of mountains.