In 1986, President Ronald Reagan delivered one of the most famous lines of his presidency : “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” It has become a political maxim that highlights the fundamental distinction between American conservatives and liberals. This week, we got to see those fault lines on full display as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) unveiled legislation that would create an “Office of Social Connection Policy.” In other words, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to force you to be friends.”

The bill would basically direct the entire federal government to facilitate social connection. That means the government would waste even more taxpayer dollars by hiring more federal employees, diverting energy away from critical government functions, and empowering agencies with no expertise to direct people on how to live their lives.

It is the sort of legislative proposal that strains credulity and proves, once again, that irony is off somewhere dead in a ditch. Only a sitting senator could convince himself that a further expansion of the federal bureaucracy could somehow make the public feel less alienated, not more so.

That’s why critics have been quick to pan the proposal as something between deeply absurd and profoundly terrifying. Conservative commentator Bethany Mandel has pointed out the odd timing of government-mandated social connection immediately following the government-mandated elimination of in-person socialization over the past three years. Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver similarly emphasized the federal government’s fundamental inability to address the problem of social connection. Writer and talk radio personality Erick Erickson said it most succinctly: “This is dumb.”

It is dumb. And it is heartening to see liberty-minded people on the Right reject it outright. But there are many similar social engineering bills with which the Right has become all too comfortable. Across the states, bills are being introduced by “limited government” legislators that would ban social media, shut off the internet at certain times during the day, or demand massive amounts of personal data be collected on every single internet user at great risk to the public's privacy, security, and constitutional rights.

On the overbroad issue of tech, these legislators embrace Big Government, often importing into their states legislation drafted and enacted in leftist strongholds such as California or the European Union. My organization, NetChoice, is suing a number of states over these unconstitutional proposals .

The state is either equipped to parent its citizens or it isn’t. From a conservative perspective, there should be no middle ground to cede. When it comes to an almost endless list of policy proposals, Republicans rightly emphasize individual and local community empowerment over the enlargement of bureaucracy and government. For example, conservatives have fought for decades to decentralize education away from federal decision-making and return choices to families, who are affected the most by those choices. The same can be said for this so-called social connection bill from Murphy. It wouldn’t be effective, and we’d further cede our will and decision-making to our federal Leviathan.

America has had the perverse privilege of being parented by the government since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. What we got for it was increased isolation, learning setbacks, and a more intrusive government that is less respectful of our constitutional rights. We need to remind the government that our lives, both offline and online, are our own and must be what we make them.

Zach Lilly is the deputy director of state and federal affairs at NetChoice, a trade association committed to making the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, in Washington, D.C. He has also served in the executive branch and as a policy adviser to former Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA).