On the contrary, many of these are collective choices made by society, especially when it comes to the law.
>What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.
I actually think this is the most insightful and humane way to think about those who live in NK under the Kim regime. They are born into an awful situation where their choices are very limited. They can collaborate, resist, or try to flee and all have unattractive consequences. I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing any of the above given such poor options. The plight of these people is defined by their lack of attractive choices, for example, they can not choose to emigrate from NK, or vote in free elections.
Similarly, this framing showcases the bravery and optimism when people choose to do make hard choices, like to be a resistor in NK, despite the tremendous cost and low chance of success.
To me, saying people have no choice is dehumanizes those both those who suffer or secede based on their choices.
What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.