I always cringe at seeing the anti-mask or whatever protest, but this seems like it's getting out of hand.
Literally taking their cue from China, i.e. 'social credit'?
I find it odd that they don't consider this to be a kind of political suicide, like, after a 18 months of lock-downs, the population has 'had enough' and ready to burst, this seems like a bad idea out of a Will Farrell political comedy.
Consider this: "What would MY government need to do, for ME to decide "This is too much" and take action?
Of course, different people will have different answers, it's a cultural thing. The line often runs close to the physical integrity of themselves or their children.
But knowing the limits of your loyalty to your government (even if those limits seem ridiculously distant now) let's you avoid the fate of "boiling frog". Things tend to go bad slowly for a while – with copious foreshadowing – then all at once.
Examples of people who were "genuinely surprised, SURELY this cannot be happening to this civilized nation" (all the way to the camp/gulag train) are trite in their horrific innumerability.
Consider this: "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country"
It only works if we act conscientiously.
If we start with a selfish mindset, and don't consider our obligations, it will all unravel quickly.
The question of government control is of course important, which is why we have to weigh things carefully.
Anti-mask protests are cringe because the mandates are within reason for a quasi national emergency, and it's a very mild form of control, from what I see it's people who are probably angry over a host of things.
The lock-downs, obviously much more severe curtailment of rights.
Arbitrary controls such as this new proposal should be met with revolt, maybe with some protest, but really at the ballot box. It's the kind of thing that should cause a party to lose most of their support, i.e. they propose it, and then 2 weeks later they recant it and pretend it didn't happen because it was such a bad idea.
This is an investigative committee's proposal, my bet is that it won't go forward.
I didn't mean anyone to answer publicly – finding the line is a personal, intimate investigation. Pavlik Morozov-style on one end; anarchists on the other.
Either way, it's good to know where government loyalty stops for you. Where the shit hits the fan, and you're past composing carefully worded posts on social media.
This started the thread.
More generally, act = take active measures to protect whatever is on the other side of the line you drew (wherever you drew it; e.g. your life & the life of your kids). At which point you don't recognize the legitimacy of the government and will break its laws and oppose its agents with clear conscience.
The "action" could be as simple as buggering off to a safer country – the winning strategy in the 20th century (especially for Jews). Jollybean also wrote this:
> Consider this: "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country"
It's conflating "country" with "government" but otherwise a good litmus test for which side of us-vs-them you see your government. That quote did remind me of Pavlik Morozov [0], when used by jollybean in the context of this particular article on Australia.