It's not as simple as good vs bad. Imagine if this discussion were framed in some far more gray context FBI vs EPA.
>I am not defending at all the actions of the FBI.
"I am not defending the EPA, the overzealous enforcement arm of regulatory capture, I am defending the FBI who work closely and collaboratively with many industries, including ours to benefit society as a whole"
Now, obviously that's not a serious opinion, but surely you see what I'm getting at.
>The problem is this exact mindset where we insist that everything is on one massive slippery slope and there's simply no way to differentiate from proper, needed regulation, and the boot of law enforcement being deployed to fuck with the working class at scale.
How exactly does one differentiate at the margin?
>We can tell the difference and it isn't difficult, it simply requires thinking which an unfortunate number of voters don't like doing.
Anything we give power to for good gets co-opted by interests that can't stand garner support on their own because such interests must find things that have good marketing and credibility to advance their causes under.
Furthermore, this failure mode is basically the story of our time. Tons of out institutions suffer from this sort of co-option by entrenched interests, big business interests, etc, etc.
>Reactionary movements have existed for every time the Government says don't do anything
And their existence can be used as a canary. I don't see a lot of people making complaining about or simping for the Office of weights and measure or state fire marshall's office. Those sort of functions aren't questionable so they don't have pushback arising out of basically nowhere and they don't need constant simpin to fight that pushback like micromanaging what people do with their cars after sale (EPA) and breaking encryption (FBI and friends) does
Now, obviously that's a bullshit statement, but surely you see the reflection.
The whole premise is flawed. We can't just pick "things" for government to enforce or do. That doesn't scale to a nation of 300+mil.
>there is ALWAYS reactionaries because there is ALWAYS a segment of the population that never matures past the age of ten.
I'd ask if you saw the irony in calling the reactionaries ten year olds immediately after thinking you can cherry pick which enforcement beurocracies are good(ish) and bad(ish) as if that's not too subjective of a task to be tractable, say nothing of the fact that they all influence each other, draw from the same talent pools at the higher levels, etc, etc.