Government, and therefore politics, is about power and force. Few 'representatives' in Washington are interested in protecting my liberty, instead they are interested in using the force of government to promote their agendas.

If I wanted to argue from a purely US based political basis I would ask:

Do you believe in the concept of enumerated powers? Are there actual limits set forth by the US Constitution that limit the scope of what the federal government can do?

If you do believe in enumerated powers then it is impossible to honestly look at the federal government and believe they are obeying it - the Constitution is Dead from their standpoint.

If you do not believe in enumerated powers and believe that  'the necessary and proper' and 'commerce clauses' essentially give the federal government carte-blanche then there is no need for the Constitution. There is no need for a limiting document. Again, it is dead.

The US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever created. However, an argument can be made that  it is fatally flawed, that it needs to be redone and the flaws fixed in an attempt to prevent the abuse and intrusiveness of government.

However, arguing from a purely legal view is not my only point, or the point of the main character in the movie.

He is taking his questioning a step further back, not to what the law should be, but to a more fundamental question: What is the basis of proper human interaction?

His starting point is shown at the end of the movie.

You may agree or disagree. However, if you disagree then you must acknowledge that 'Some Human Interaction Will Not Be Voluntary' or better 'Some Humans By Definition and Necessity Must Force Other Humans To Act Against Their Will'

How the protagonist progresses from here is unknown, but will be discovered in future movies.