It wasn't just the claims of power. It was the claims of power to impose rules that were ignored by those doing the imposing. How many officials imposed mask mandates and then were seen in public unmasked? How many imposed travel bans, and then went on vacation out of state? How much do they think they can rub their hypocrisy in the face of the public before people get angry?

Then there was the legal over-reach. This isn't a dictatorship; it's the rule of law. People in power don't get to just issue orders; they have to have the authority to issue those orders. A lot of people giving orders didn't seem to care. Worse, they didn't even seem to understand the concept of limited government. They just acted like they could order whatever they wanted. Well, in a country where a fair number of people actually care about freedom and limited government, of course there's going to be pushback.

> the governor claimed the authority for such a restriction

It is interesting that both the legislature and the voters seemed largely willing to accept government by executive order (and sometimes bizarre orders as you note) for much of the pandemic.

This statement is misleading at best. The closest we got were restrictions of 10+ people. Everyone in this country throughout the pandemic you could have associated with a smaller group in your private residence.

The California shelter in place mandate on December 5th, 2020 [1] prohibited all recreational interactions with others outside your household. It applied to both indoor and outdoor gatherings of any number of people. It made it illegal to walk with a friend in a park, or visit a lover in their home.

a. All gatherings with members of other households are prohibited in the Region except as expressly permitted herein.

b. All individuals living in the Region shall stay home or at their place of residence except as necessary to conduct activities associated with the operation, maintenance, or usage of critical infrastructure, as required by law, or as specifically permitted in this order.

h. Nothing in this Order prevents any number of persons from the same household from leaving their residence, lodging, or temporary accommodation, as long as they do not engage in any interaction with (or otherwise gather with) any number of persons from any other household, except as specifically permitted herein

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-St...

It's funny to me because this could apply to the Texas sodomy laws that existed as recently as 19 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Let's be honest, your statement of "For me it was a shock to see the power the state had or at least claimed to have over my life." can apply to all of our politicians of both parties at every level.

For me, I think the apt shock comparison would be if I were gay and a state was putting new sodomy laws on the the books. Of course government overreach is more eye opening when you realize you are the receiving end of it.

I think the criticism can be leveled at both parties for different issues. That said, I think it is defeatist to simply say all politicians are the same. Parties perform differently on different issues, and some politicians perform better across multiple issues.

More precisely, a shock to see how little power you have over your life. In America you are brainwashed to believe otherwise, mostly so you exercise this 'power' with your credit card

I didn't and don't see it that way.

People still almost all the actual power. They voluntarily give most of it up. The state is relatively impotent and can only make an example of a few people at a time.

I can't believe sex was legal during the AIDS epidemic

Um... not for everyone.

For who was it illegal?

Gay people. This was the era of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Sodomy laws were finally ruled unconstitutional in 2003, nullifying the laws still on the books in the remaining states:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_St...

I see what you were alluding to. I thought it was something specific to aids.

Interesting to think that of what covid response rhetoric would look like applied to the aids epidemic.

EG we don't let possible disease spreaders eat together, so why would we let to consenting adult vectors have sex.

As I recall, there was more than a little glee at the time on the part of conservatives at the idea of a "gay disease" which delayed and weakened the government response:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/04/full-st...