The thing is, it's not usually necessary for an entire organization (or even the most critical controlling part) to explicitly come up with and follow an evil p

The thing is, it's not usually necessary for an entire organization (or even the most critical controlling part) to explicitly come up with and follow an evil plan, in order for them to act as though they were governed by an evil plan. Just like it's not necessary for one person, or one group of people, to conceive of the entire manufacturing process of, say, a pencil (right down to the brewing of the coffee drunk by the lumberjacks that chop the wood eventually used to make the pencil), in order for the pencil to be produced in that fashion. If the right people have the right incentives at the right time, then the end result is the same as if they were all following a plan. So, if, say, some media companies lobby some members of Congress to put forth a bill because piracy is inconvenient for them, and the rest of Congress passes the bill because they think it helps enforce what they think are property rights, and the President signs it because it appears to be the solution to a growing problem, and the FBI or whatever (apparently DHS has taken an interest in these cases) makes a vague effort toward enforcing it (it is hard and resource-intensive to enforce thoroughly)... and then a dictatorial-minded president gets elected, and makes a practice of enforcing this law very stringently upon political opponents... then it's the same result as if the whole thing were planned beforehand by a conspiracy of evil masterminds. (I'll take the opportunity to mention how Al Capone was convicted and put to justice... for income tax evasion. Whatever Congress or the public had in mind when passing the 16th amendment, I'm sure it wasn't this.) It's simply helpful as a way to predict the potential consequences down the road of a piece of legislation to imagine that the government is composed of evil masterminds. I don't care whether there is such a conspiracy; arguing with that premise misses the point. It's like treating a mass of jiggling particles as an ideal gas for purposes of physical calculations; the argument is that that will--most likely, eventually--happen.