So, I said one thing (The US government subsidizes low agency individuals, who drag the rest down by existing, so that they can keep a stable population from which to buy votes on the cheap), and you completely ignored it to start straw-manning something unrelated (simping for regulations).
These are unrelated, so I'm not sure how you got there.
No, there isn't. Anyone who thinks so is experiencing cognitive dissonance. It is what happens when a normally smart person encounters info that they consider unacceptable, so their brain protects them by turning off logic and engaging emotions.
They stated very clearly what it means. You do not like that, so you are playing definition games because you cannot tolerate the reality of the matter.
Have as anybody ever done any research into the consequences of removing consequences from your average person through excessive government smothering (protection for some depending on your upbringing).
This causes the lowest common denominator to live and influence the world much more vividly than ever before. And our politicians are super cool with that because it's their secret for creating long political careers.
So, they subsidize the lowest common denominators of society, the ones that would have dunning-krugered themselves ten times over, then the politicians tell them if they want to survive, they have to vote for us, or the other guy will take your livelihood. 9/10 times it's a lie, but they're super easy to manipulate and cheap to subsidize (buy votes - this cheapness is important to their super PACs low cost per vote is just simple business, better to buy one McConnell or Pelosi than 5 fresh faces) so they keep the voters miserable, in pain, and desperate for government help.
But what is this doing to the average competency of humans overall? This group of low-understanders keep demanding that we put together more bureaucracy and regulations slowing down progress so the politicians can look like they're doing something when they should be demanding the opposite and instead pushing for transparency and consumer choice laws. These nip profits pretty badly though, so our bought politicians never push the idea.
Even this Net Neutrality scuffle is just them creating solutions to problems they've already caused with overregulation creating no competition. Then we get the lowest common denominators cheering it and it's just sad.
I think you just said: these are contradictory, and then you did a cognitive dissonance to avoid that conclusion by saying but it's fine, because I want to build society.
But the "Anti-Free/Speech Anti-1A ideas = building society" is just a fallacy that have been assumed.
Here, it's even admitted: "It states the complete and universal right without any caveats whatsoever,". then you do the dissonance dance because you don't like that very much.
Our founding fathers should have included a list of definitions (and a list of definitions to those definitions...), but they probably didn't realize how catty their future generations would be, or how much they like being oppressed because it makes them feel safe.
These are unrelated, so I'm not sure how you got there.