>tricked [and] evangelical about tricking others

Nah, that's just your "democratic" process.

People forced to choose between 2 extreme evils, one (debatably) lesser, are not called "normal", they are called unfree.

The process of making sure people are always in one such situation or another is not called "governance", it's called driving insane.

>I wouldn't assume all those people are naive, confused, or duped.. they've simply switched from a principled/abstract stance to a convenience-based calculus after they were forced into it.

Forced into it under threat of violence, or under threat of denied sustenance and shelter, or "forced" by catering to their naivete, by confusing and duping them, by silently extorting them by enclosure of the commons?

Switching from "principle-based stance" to "convenience-based stance" is not called "being sensible", it's called... cowardice.

>Unfortunately and by design, the things you can ultimately vote for are "all or nothing" flavored. Censor everything, censor nothing. Track everybody, track nobody.

If voting changed anything they'd ban it.

>Tons of parents who totally understand the surveillance state

If you truly understood how the surveillance state feeds on human life, you would deny it sustenance by - yes: - refusing to breed in captivity.

That's one of the few meaningful political actions available to the individual. At least until advances in reproductive medicine get turned on us, same way it happened with the mind-bicycles. A society with the technical capacity to go Gattaca might rather go all-in on Plato's Republic.

Type of beat like yall can have the world to yourselves if yall want it that bad, but believe me, you will choke on it.