Everything in government is political. Western democracy is a decent form of government, but it's not the best - benevolent dictatorship is the best; it just doesn't have checks against it turning non-benevolent.
The problem is where do you draw the line, because it has to be drawn somewhere. You claim that limiting the government's scope is good in all cases, yet this is clearly not true - if we were to take arrest powers away from police for example, society as a whole would suffer.
Limiting scope can be argued all the way down to anarchy, which is clearly not supportable at anything beyond the size of a small conclave.
I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right.
The truth has never been simple in politics, and anyone who maintains that it is, is simply displaying contempt (open or otherwise) for your intellect. As a result, we can't rely on simplistic solutions for politics, and have to be cautious of things that try to make it one-size-fits-all.
The problem is where do you draw the line, because it has to be drawn somewhere. You claim that limiting the government's scope is good in all cases, yet this is clearly not true - if we were to take arrest powers away from police for example, society as a whole would suffer.
Limiting scope can be argued all the way down to anarchy, which is clearly not supportable at anything beyond the size of a small conclave.
I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right.
The truth has never been simple in politics, and anyone who maintains that it is, is simply displaying contempt (open or otherwise) for your intellect. As a result, we can't rely on simplistic solutions for politics, and have to be cautious of things that try to make it one-size-fits-all.