The biggest difference is that, the government can come to your door using men with guns, i.e., LEO's, military, or some other executive branch hit squad/agency (e.g. FBI, DHS, IRS, HHS). If these men make a mistake and kill you or your family by accident, they face few if any penalties, perhaps transfer to a different agency or precinct or a bad performance review is their disciplinary punishment.

You might believe your forced into using Google, but you aren't. In fact, if you toss your cell phone and your computer in a river, no agency will come to your door and demand that you purchase new devices and resume online shopping, using their mapping applications, talk and text on that device, etc. Likewise, If you pay your bills with check or money order, they won't decline your payment.

The cooperation between big tech and the government is extremely dangerous, without a doubt. But under a capitalistic system, there are always alternatives that will pop up, such as patriot mobile for cell phone service or black rifle coffee instead of Starbucks.

Far more problematic, are the companies such as Equifax, transUnion etc who build government sponsored dossiers on us without our consent. But even then, you could still just use cash for everything and avoid all of them.

However, your question stems from the fact that like most millennial, x-ienniel, and gen Z'ers, you don't have a proper understanding of what is a right. Yes I know it is 2019, and you might truly believe the internet and healthcare are a right, that Facebook is a right, But under the system which devised our constitution, these aren't rights.

I find myself leaning heavily libertarian. However, I came to realize that a libertarian society can only exist in a culture where it's morals and foundations have the strong underpinnings of Judeo Christian values. If you have no ultimate higher authority, then the state is extremely likely to fill that role, which is exactly what's happening in our society.

There is a growing majority of the population that look to the government, to the president, as the entities providing their rights. they'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed. They'd rather government provide a safety net for those who need one, or at the minimum ensure that those who fall through the cracks are taken care of. Years ago, a majority of the people looked to each other as the ones to be the solutions, not the government. Institutions like churches, Lions clubs, Moose, Knights of Columbus once reflected These values and traditions.

It is what it is I suppose. I don't look at this as generally positive, but, as they wrote in the declaration, it's up to the people to declare what the government should be, and what it should do, and it should reflect the people it represents.

I'm not sure if the constitution were written today, it would pass. In fact, I don't think it would, not even by close margin. The first five amendments seem to be under aggressive attack generally by any state Hilrod win in 2016, and she won by popular vote..