Because they are supposed to be working for you, and if they keep fighting your goals, you should pressure them into being replaced.

That's going to be real hard to do when they have an AI profile of you so accurate they can undercut your political power at every turn.

Yes, that's correct. But do you have any better option?

This is reason to rush, not to decide somebody else will do a better work.

I think you’re missing the point, the issue is important because they have no reason to act against themselves, but a healthy system would have someone opposing them, and that’s not happening at the moment.

If you want a rule enforced against some party, you need the enforcement power to belong to some other party.

I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with that. My interpretation of your initial comment was that you were saying it’s not an important issue because it can’t be effectively policed. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but that’s what I got out of your saying no in response to the assertion that it’s important.

The reason I'm saying "no" is this:

>> The people who nominally you want to be enforcing this "right" are also some of the people who most want to AI profile you.

If your goal is specifically to have someone enforce a rule against themselves, that's not an important issue, because it won't work.

If you change the statement of your goal so that you're not requiring the enforcement power to be vested in the target of the rule, then the issue might become more important.

Right, but being fatalistic and giving up is even less likely to be successful than attempting to create counterbalancing force in the system.