I think there's a big difference between "a society without any personal freedom or choice" and one where there are certain regulations for the public good. Som

I think there's a big difference between "a society without any personal freedom or choice" and one where there are certain regulations for the public good. Some examples might be hate speech laws or food safety. Those do put concrete limits on the behaviours of individuals and corporate entities, but help guide society to grow and operate in a way considered healthier than if left alone. I'm skeptical of the notion that regulation "slowly and surely just inches forward" naturally. Maybe you could explain a bit?