A government doesn't have to be violent to be abusive or corrupt. And the US government is formed by its citizens. It's presumptuous, and I'd argue dangerous,

A government doesn't have to be violent to be abusive or corrupt. And the US government is formed by its citizens. It's presumptuous, and I'd argue dangerous, that a government should be in a paternal position. In particular, if a democracy is in charge of purifying the media its citizens consume, who holds the the government censors and gatekeepers accountable if (when) they become corrupt? It's not a coincidence that Venezuelan leadership cracked down on courts and independent media as it slid into the current mess. Further, "protecting its citizens" is often narrowed to "protecting the true citizens", enforcing bigotry with a patina of honorable intentions. See the Jim Crow American South, the Spanish Inquisition, and the murder of Christians in 17th century Japan.