> people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash,

This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there.

Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)

You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so despite an elaborate framework to keep its tentacles short.

And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".

Ah, do you have even the slightest clue about Switzerland?! I mean, it's quite impressive how you seem to have confused Switzerland for a highly centralised country with a distant political structure.

Could you go and do some research on the country before you comment on it?

> If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.

The Swiss military is _huge_ for its size. It has one of the largest militaries per capita in the world.

They are one of the most people-empowering nations ever. If enough people indicate it(50k signatures in 100 days cfr google), a legally binding regerendum must be held. A simple majority can then change the law.

I wish more nations could have that kind of direct acces to their democracy. Even so, the majority of these referenda fail to change anything, so presumably people tend to make more noise than wanting actual change.