The Antibiotic Mistake: How Government Overreach Strengthened Resistance
Power is most effective when it moves slowly. History shows that societies rarely reject restrictions if they are introduced gradually, under the pretext of progress or protection. Surveillance, speech limitations, and bureaucratic control tend to expand in small steps—so incrementally that people adapt without resistance.
In the span of months, governments imposed unprecedented restrictions: lockdowns, movement controls, forced compliance measures, and widespread censorship. What would have once been unthinkable became normal overnight. But this shift wasn’t gradual—it was immediate, blunt, and absolute.
At first, most people complied, whether out of fear, trust, or a sense of collective duty. But in accelerating their control so aggressively, governments made a critical miscalculation.
The Backfire of Overreach
Hegel’s dialectic suggests that any extreme action provokes a reaction. Push too hard in one direction, and the counterforce will be just as strong. This is exactly what happened when governments attempted to impose strict social and political controls.
Before COVID, skepticism about government authority was limited to small groups. But once power was used in a direct, visible, and forceful way, opposition became mainstream. Many who once trusted institutions found themselves questioning policies that shifted unpredictably—restrictions that were justified one day and revoked the next, mandates that contradicted earlier expert statements.
In a different era, these inconsistencies might have gone unnoticed. But with modern technology and global communication, people could compare policies across countries in real-time, and they started to notice contradictions. Some nations imposed months-long lockdowns, while others never closed, yet the long-term outcomes weren’t drastically different. Many people—who would have never questioned authority before—began to ask: Was all of this truly necessary?
Resistance and the Concept of Antifragility
Nassim Taleb’s theory of antifragility describes how certain systems don’t just survive under stress—they grow stronger because of it. Unlike fragile structures that collapse under pressure or resilient ones that simply endure, antifragile systems adapt and improve when subjected to challenges.
Society’s response to COVID restrictions followed this pattern. Instead of passively accepting restrictions, a portion of the population became more skeptical, more engaged, and more resistant to top-down authority than before. People who had never considered civil liberties or government overreach began paying attention to issues they had once ignored.
Had governments continued with incremental control, they might have avoided this reaction. But by acting too aggressively, too suddenly, they inadvertently created a stronger opposition.
The Erosion of Legitimacy
Antonio Gramsci wrote that governance is not just about force—it requires legitimacy. People follow rules not simply because they are enforced, but because they believe the rules are reasonable. When that belief disappears, compliance becomes fragile.
During COVID, many people trusted the system at first. They followed mandates, accepted government messaging, and complied with restrictions in the belief that these measures were in the public’s best interest. But as time went on, inconsistencies and contradictions eroded this trust.
Policies often changed without clear explanations. Scientific debates were shut down instead of openly discussed. Governments that had claimed to "follow the science" reversed course multiple times, sometimes within weeks.
For many, this was a turning point. Trust, once lost, does not easily return. People might still follow laws, still respect institutions—but they no longer assume these structures are acting in their best interest. The next time a crisis emerges, compliance will no longer be automatic.
They Stopped Too Soon
If governments had continued reinforcing restrictions indefinitely, society might have adapted. Over time, what was once seen as extreme could have become the new norm. But they stopped.
As restrictions lifted, people had time to reflect. And as they did, many realized how much had changed in such a short time. They saw how quickly rights could be removed—and how inconsistently those restrictions had been applied. This pause, this space to reflect, may have been the greatest mistake of all.
Had control been more gradual, had restrictions been less aggressive, the opposition might have remained small. Instead, governments created the conditions for resistance.
What Comes Next?
This is not about conspiracy or ideology—it is about human behavior. When power is exercised in a way that feels excessive or unpredictable, people naturally begin to question it.
This is not new. Historically, every major societal shift has followed a similar pattern: overreach leads to resistance, and resistance reshapes the future.
The world is now different than it was before. Governments have learned how much control they can impose in a crisis—but societies have also learned how quickly things can change. The next time such measures are introduced, the response will not be the same.
Because once people have seen what is possible, they do not forget, at least not so soon.