How the states manage to pass abusive laws
TLDR: Democracies are just disguised dictatorships
Introduction
Every day, countless laws are enacted around the world, some of which are publicly announced while others are not. Many of these laws are met with resistance from the public, as they undermine individual freedoms, harm the economy, or are seen as blatantly unfair. The problem lies in the lack of official channels for contesting such laws, and the fact that governments often disregard public opinion. Our goal today is to understand how these governments are passing oppressive laws, tightening their control over the population, and why there is little to no visible resistance.
As you can see, laws that infringe on liberties and are aimed at controlling populations are not a new phenomenon, they can affect virtually every aspect of your life. While such laws have existed for a long time, their frequency and impact seem to have increased in recent decades, leading to a gradual erosion of freedom and a growing emphasis on control.
How abusive laws are justified?
Even though public opinion is often disregarded, governments justify these oppressive laws in various ways. One common excuse is the need for security and the protection of citizens. It's almost ironic, though, since the state itself is often the greatest threat to the population. Essentially, the very entity that poses the danger is the one telling you what you can and can't do, supposedly to protect you, usually from itself.
The state's strategy is straightforward: they justify oppressive laws under the guise of protection. Before implementing such laws, governments work to instill fear in the population, often by creating a "villain", whether it's a group, an ideology, or an external threat, and using the media to spread this narrative. Once the majority of people are frightened and clamoring for safety, the government steps in, positioning itself as the hero ready to protect the people by passing a new law.
If we look at the image above, it's clear that many of the top fears in the US in 2018 were closely tied to the biggest media stories. This suggests that people's fears are often shaped by what the government and media tell them to be afraid of. And, unsurprisingly, laws have been passed on most of these topics. But it's not as simple as it seems. States actively shape fears and pass laws that are framed as solutions to these fears, often with the added goal of gaining public support before implementing more unpopular measures. Here, we will explore which laws were passed in response to the displayed fears and how the U.S. government manipulated public opinion.
Corruption of government officials (74%)
Justice Against Corruption on Our Streets (JACOS) Act: Passed in 2018, this law aims to provide better transparency and accountability within government institutions.
Date: May 2018
Unpopular Law: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments (May 2018)
While the JACOS Act focused on anti-corruption measures to increase government transparency, the FISA Amendments extended surveillance powers to government agencies, allowing for broader collection of citizens' data under the guise of national security. Public concern over government corruption was manipulated to justify surveillance expansion, which had significant privacy implications
Pollution of oceans, rivers, and lakes (62%)
America's Water Infrastructure Act: This bipartisan bill addressed a variety of water infrastructure issues, including ensuring the cleanliness and safety of U.S. waterways and rivers.
Date: October 23, 2018
Unpopular Law: The Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (October 2018)
While the Water Infrastructure Act aimed at improving water safety and combating pollution, the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act quietly included provisions that allowed for the relaxation of some water pollution standards and provided more leniency to corporate polluters. The public's concern about pollution was used to gain support for laws that also loosened regulations that were unpopular with environmentalists.
Pollution of drinking water (61%)
PFAS Action Act: Although this bill gained significant attention in 2018, it focuses on regulating PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in drinking water, a growing concern related to water contamination.
Date: Introduced in 2018 (Still in progress)
Unpopular Law: Rollback of Clean Water State Revolving Fund (2018)
While the PFAS Action Act aimed to address contamination in drinking water, especially from chemicals like PFAS, around the same time, the government rolled back several environmental protection funds, including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This rollback reduced funding for water contamination clean-up programs, despite public concern over water pollution. It showed how the government could claim progress in certain areas while cutting funding that would directly address environmental issues.
Not having enough money for the future (57%)
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Passed in December 2017, this bill continued to shape U.S. economic policy through 2018. It affected financial planning and retirement for individuals.
Date: December 22, 2017 (Extended effects through 2018)
Unpopular Law: Reconciliation Bill (2018)
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided tax cuts for individuals and corporations, which were marketed as helping people plan for their future financially. However, the Reconciliation Bill passed in 2018 contained provisions to reduce funding for social programs, such as healthcare and food assistance, making it harder for lower-income people to save for the future. These laws were passed in close succession, using the fear of financial insecurity to justify tax cuts while cutting crucial social safety nets.
People I love dying (57%)
Support for Patients and Communities Act: This law aimed to combat the opioid crisis, a growing concern tied to health and the loss of loved ones.
Date: October 24, 2018
Unpopular Law: Public Health Emergency Declaration (October 2018)
That's how you fear people:
The Support for Patients and Communities Act was designed to address the opioid crisis and improve public health. However, the Public Health Emergency Declaration allowed the government to enact emergency powers that limited state and local governments' control over public health measures and pushed for private-sector solutions that had the potential to profit from the crisis. This expansion of power under the pretext of public health gave the government the ability to make unpopular decisions related to healthcare and treatment distribution.
People I love becoming seriously ill (56%)
Medicare for All Support and Proposals: Though not passed, 2018 saw substantial legislative discussions and proposals related to Medicare for All in the U.S., with the goal of improving healthcare access and reducing illness-related financial strain.
Date: Active in 2018 (no final legislation passed)
Unpopular Law: Repeal of the Individual Mandate (December 2017)
While Medicare for All proposals were gaining traction, the repeal of the individual mandate in 2018 (a provision of the Affordable Care Act) made healthcare less affordable for millions of Americans. While the fear of illness and financial ruin due to medical expenses was used to promote Medicare for All, the repeal of the mandate showed how health policy could be manipulated to benefit private insurers and reduce access to care for many people.
Extinction of plant and animal species (53%)
Farm Bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018): This bill focused on funding conservation efforts to protect wildlife and ecosystems. It included measures to protect endangered species and promote biodiversity.
Date: December 20, 2018
Unpopular Law: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Rollback (2018)
The Farm Bill included provisions for conservation efforts, but at the same time, the ESA Rollback (which took place in 2018) reduced protections for endangered species and gave more power to industries to exploit lands critical to biodiversity. The fear of species extinction was used to promote conservation programs while simultaneously undermining existing protections for wildlife, manipulating public concern to push forward more industry-friendly policies.
Global warming and climate change (53%)
California's Global Warming Solutions Act: While it was initially passed in 2006, in 2018 California passed further regulations in line with their aggressive emissions reduction targets, addressing the growing concern of climate change.
Date: 2018 Reaffirmation of California climate policies
Unpopular Law: Rollbacks on Obama-Era Environmental Regulations (2018)
While California reaffirmed its ambitious climate change goals in 2018, at the same time, the federal government continued to roll back numerous environmental regulations introduced during the Obama administration, such as limits on carbon emissions from power plants. The fear of climate change was used to push for stronger local regulations, while the federal government used this same fear to justify easing restrictions on industries that contributed to the problem.
High medical bills (53%)
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018: This act addressed a variety of healthcare-related provisions, including changes to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, in an effort to reduce healthcare costs.
Date: February 9, 2018
Unpopular Law: American Health Care Act (AHCA) Efforts in 2018
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included provisions for improving healthcare access, but at the same time, efforts to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with the American Health Care Act (AHCA) were ongoing in 2018. The AHCA would have stripped healthcare from millions, making high medical bills a reality for many more Americans. The government used the public fear of rising healthcare costs to pass budget-friendly policies while also working to dismantle the ACA.
Another way to justify oppressive laws is through rhetoric. "Oh, you're against this law that allows the government to film you wherever you are and use facial recognition? That means you're against protecting vulnerable people, which we need to prevent harm."
By appealing to people's sense of morality and guilt, states gain more leeway to restrict freedom and increase control. Since governments often lack real boundaries, they'll use any tactic to make the public feel guilty about wanting to protect their rights. They can hide behind the well-being of children, the poor, the elderly, or even animals, if it helps them manipulate you.
Abusive laws word wide
To demonstrate how abusive laws can be passed anywhere in the world, I'd like to share the following five examples of laws that clearly impact people's liberties, along with how they were justified:
China's Social Credit System
This system assigns scores to individuals based on their behavior, including social media activity, financial behavior, and even who they associate with. Those with low scores face consequences such as travel restrictions, job limitations, and public shaming.
The system infringes on privacy, limits freedom of movement, and punishes people for behaviors that don't align with the government's ideals. It also lacks transparency and accountability.
This law was justified by the Chinese government as being designed to enhance people's security and reward the good ones. Essentially, the message is: "If you're against this law, it means you're not acting in good faith."
Russia's "Foreign Agent" Law
This law requires non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and independent media outlets that receive foreign funding to register as "foreign agents" and label their publications accordingly. It has been used to shut down critical voices and opposition groups.
It stifles free speech and the work of civil society organizations, particularly those critical of the government. The law creates an environment of fear and self-censorship, undermining political freedoms.
Using the excuse of national security, the Russian government justified this law by labeling opponents as enemies of the state.
India's Sedition Law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code)
This law criminalizes speech or acts that could incite disaffection or hatred toward the government. It's been widely used to suppress dissent, particularly against political opposition, journalists, and activists.
The law is vague and has been used arbitrarily, limiting freedom of expression and silencing political opposition. It gives the government broad power to target individuals who criticize it, often without evidence of wrongdoing.
The Indian government presents this law as a tool to ensure stability and prevent unwanted changes for the population. "If you're against this law, it means you're a dangerous opponent who wants instability in the country."
Hungary's "Stop Soros" Law
The Hungarian government introduced this law to criminalize support for organizations that assist migrants and refugees. Individuals or groups that help asylum seekers could face fines or imprisonment.
It targets NGOs and human rights organizations, limiting the ability of individuals to act on humanitarian grounds. It suppresses free association and creates fear among those trying to provide assistance to vulnerable people.
The Hungarian government used the population's fear of crime to justify this law, broadly claiming that immigration was closely linked to it.
Turkey's Anti-Terrorism Laws
After the 2016 coup attempt, Turkey's government expanded anti-terrorism laws that have been used to target journalists, activists, opposition politicians, and even everyday citizens. The law gives authorities broad powers to imprison people for alleged connections to terrorism, even if they haven't been involved in any violence.
The law is overly broad and vague, allowing the government to label dissent as "terrorism." This leads to arbitrary arrests, suppression of free speech, and political persecution, severely curtailing individual freedoms.
Since "terrorism" is a vague term, and governments manipulate public fear about it through the media, they use this fear to justify such laws. "If you're against this law, it means you're a terrorist or supporting terrorists who will harm your family."
The Online Safety Act (UK)
Here, we will focus on a recently passed law that perfectly illustrates abusive legislation. In the UK, the Online Safety Act was introduced under the banner of child protection, requiring websites to verify users' identities before granting access. Unlike France, which applies a similar system only to adult websites, the UK has extended it to many other topics.
The main issue is that UK citizens can no longer browse the clear web without having their identity verified. While the clear web has never been anonymous, this law goes further, requiring people to share their ID and a photo every time they visit certain websites. Privacy is once again impacted for state needs purpose.
A second problem is that website owners, whether businesses or individuals, must comply with this law to remain online. They are obliged to implement identity verification systems or face losing 10% of their income to state penalties (That's racket). In practice, it's a "pay or pay" situation.
The UK government justifies this abusive law by running an extensive media campaign centered around child protection online. Essentially, if you're against this law, it implies that you're against protecting children. Once again, the state manipulates moral sentiment, turning your values against you.
Once again, instead of educating people, especially children, on how to stay safe while freely browsing the internet, states choose to act as guardians, deciding who can access what. This approach is widely used around the world, as seen with drug control, gun control, or financial regulations, for example.
What happens when you try to browse the internet as a UK citizen?
In order to show you what happens when you browse the internet as a UK citizen, I'll share a quick scenario:
Let's start with Reddit. Let's say you need to visit Reddit to get information about your favorite video game, which is rated 18+. Here's what you'll encounter:
Now, let's say you want to continue with a Wikipedia article that you're really interested in, as you need some information for your work. Fortunately, Wikipedia has refused to implement age verification! But be careful, it could be banned in the UK soon. Yes, it's not just financial threats. The state can also decide to ban websites from being accessible in the UK. It's essentially a direct attack on freedom.
Alright, so you decide to go on X (formerly Twitter) or Instragram to share your thoughts on this abusive law. First of all, it's not a good idea, as X and any meta related solution aren't anonymous at all. But let's say you don't know anything about OPSEC and decide to go ahead anyway. Guess what? Age verification again!
Now, you're really frustrated, so you decide to head over to YouTube to watch some videos and change your mood. Nobody's perfect, right? You'll have to get used to it, age verification again…
And of course, last but not least, adult sites are all covered by this law, requiring you to share your ID or personal information to access them. Nobody wants to do that.
Can you imagine, if you're a UK citizen, you're living this, to have to share your ID or a picture of yourself 5, 10, 20, or more times a day with random websites just to access information? That's not freedom. That's simply dictatorship measures designed to control the population and test how far a state can go.
The consequences of it
As Professor Malcolm says in the Jurassic Park movie, "Life finds a way." And that's exactly what's happening right now in the UK. People aren't okay with sharing their identity with any website they want to visit, and they're massively subscribing to VPN services or setting up free VPNs. Some mainstream VPNs, like ProtonVPN and NordVPN, have seen usage increase by up to 1400%.
It might seem like a good solution, but in the end, using these kinds of VPNs still carries risks, as some providers don't hesitate to collaborate with authorities and share your online activity. We would recommend using Mullvad VPN instead, which is far more secure and truly simple to use.
Another consequence, and one of the most important ones, is the centralization of the internet. Big corporations will quickly adapt, and the financial impact of adding KYC will be negligible. But what about small websites? Most of them can't afford to give 10% of their income to the state or implement KYC on their sites. Some are even refusing to comply with this law because it's so abusive. What will likely happen is that many of these small sites will either disappear or move out of the UK, leaving only state-aligned platforms behind. More than just controlling citizens' access to websites, the state will decide what can and can't be accessed, even by those willing to comply.
What's happening in the UK right now is essentially what happened in China or North Korea in the past. The state is taking more and more control over the population and the information available, silently banning anything they disagree with to ensure that the population can only access what they've decided, and to keep them docile.
Conclusion
This situation is exactly what happens when a service administrator stays on the clearweb. States can take control because you remain vulnerable to them. Staying on the clearweb puts you in a submissive position. The only way to avoid government control while managing a website is to operate on the darknet. It's the only way to stay free.
Fighting the state should be a priority for anyone who wants to remain free and for anyone who disagrees with being controlled by people who don't deserve any consideration. You don't need to be violent to fight the state. You simply need to live outside their system.
Suggest changes
Crabmeat
2025-08-16
Donate XMR to the author:89aWkJ8yabjWTDYcHYhS3ZCrNZiwurptzRZsEpuBLFpJgUfAK2aj74CPDSNZDRnRqeKNGTgrsi9LwGJiaQBQP4Yg5YtJw2U