No, I am directly addressing the parent's implication that for things "we care about", small (central) government is somehow bad or a curious choice or hypocrisy.
I'd like to make a cleaner point, but the parent itself is very vague.
Republicans / Conservatives, whatever the terminology, generally have an aim of "small government"; minimal intervention. This is not a bad thing in and of itself.
I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy that they choose Big Government for specific topics because what they actually want, when they say Small Government, is minimal responsibility for what they consider trivial or politically inert or personally boring, and Big Government when it suits their agenda; when it will score political points or personally profit individuals making the decisions.
Specifically denying States the ability to pass laws seems... overtly paranoid. It shows their hand on how desperate they are about US success of AI. As if they know the bubble will inevitably pop and are legislating against the possibility of anyone creating something that might look like a pin, so as to delay the pop until, hopefully, after the next election.
No, that's fair enough, and probably the correct answer overall: Find the size that best fits the "thing".
Hypocrisy is invoked, however, when a party that rallies around "small government" as core to their ideology legislates in a "big government" fashion to such an extent that it is to explicitly prevent "small government" behaviour (ie. allowing states to make their own decisions).
What this does it totally and completely give their game away: They're betting the farm on AI (currently synonymous with US Big Tech).
