> This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times

If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.)

Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11.

You used to be able to get on an airplane without scanning your retinas.

You used to be able to walk into a bank and make a transaction without it being immediately reported to the IRS.

Your private correspondence was not scanned and digitized by the post office.

All the above freedoms, and so many more, are not only gone they are illegal.

Slippery slopes exist and the government uses them with great competence.

> It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11

Incorrect. Focus on the argument.

> Slippery slopes exist

Sure. But concluding by arguing their existence is a literal fallacy.

Another slippery slope: food safety. Or our aversion to animal and child cruelty. Compounding social effects that build on themselves. That these exist isn’t disputed. That they exist also doesn’t mean they always manifest. In this case, there is zero evidence of compounding and every one of moderation through iteration. (Contrast Trump’s first efforts with the House’s first bill with what finally passed.)