l_b_i

Disclaimer, I don't like what is being done, I think its wrong, damaging, and questionably legal, at least the process that is currently in progress.

To add more nuance and explanation, There are only 3 branches of government, and when congress says we want a thing done, the executive is the one to execute, because where else could you even put it? For truly independent agencies, I think you need to amend the constitution for that. The current administration is taking that to heart and taking more of an active role, often beyond bounds set, in what is still lower level of the executive. If you were to go to an org chart of the people being fired, and departments being closed, if you went up a few levels you would get to the president. As much as NIH, or CDC, or USAID, or any others are independent, at the end of the day, they are part of the executive.

Most of what is being done has been done or tried to be done before, not necessarily at the same time.

As for your list, I'd be careful about throwing the baby out with the bath water, the NSA is involved with evaluating encryption, although there is some checkered history (DES) in this role.

The FBI helps coordinate multi state investigations

Intelligence from the CIA would be useful, but their history of foreign meddling that has come back to bite is a bit hard to overlook.

I DON'T AGREE WITH MOST OF THE FOLLOWING. what follows is simply my best guess.

Different people are going to have different reasons, the first two are the majority of the voters the rest are for the owner class.

1. Take the following statements to be true: Taxation is theft, government action is evil. If you apply no other logic, many of the actions make sense. The CFPB is government action, therefore evil and should be removed.
2. ANY regulation impedes the free market. CFPB is a regulation it impedes the free market
3. It helps the selfish people doing it. They will be able to take more risky positions at the expense of the public and make money.

I have a local shop who makes their own. I like the 85% dark from Peru. Its so good.

I just came back to this, the linked site is a conservative think tank/ advocacy group.

So I looked into this source and its references. I will simply point out the group itself is a conservative think tank and most of the sources are the same.

I'm generally opposed to strict verification. To me the only thing that could justify it is a repeatable study that shows causation between something that the verification would restrict and a negative (not moral panic negative) outcome. Whenever its brought up the "think of the children" comments come out and I am skeptical. It often sounds like video games cause violence excuses. I wanted to know if there was actual justification because to me it seems like they are usually pushed by either religious groups or some group that wants to hoover up data. I have yet to see something beyond moral panic justifying the push.

No, I'm looking for studies either way. Several have been linked here and I've glanced at them and plan on reading them a bit more in depth when I get some time.

A lot of what you said is what I have seen when I looked into this before, and part of why I asked the question.

Yes like that. I'll have to dive into the sources presented.

But your Efficacy, risks and invasiveness, are predicated on the need. If there is no need, the secondary discussion becomes redundant.

And I'm not saying there isn't a need, but I would like evidence to support the need.

Thanks for the link, I'll peruse and see what I see.

The question is what is the evidence based justification for the strict verification that is being pushed. The efficacy and implementation is a different question entirely.