Nothing is free and if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

Any free-shit-for-people system needs to get their free shit from somewhere. This is done by human sacrifices (throwing own citizens, namely men, under the metaphorical bus) and/or wars (war against [whatever] / "peacekeeping") it's all about gaining access to resources to keep the system running, to someone's benefit (those who want to enforce it)
No one advocates a thing that doesn't benefit them somehow. Anyone opposing, questioning or threatening it, is called "problematic" , "dangerous" or with some other label to justify a preset and normalized course of action against this person; to dismiss this person's validity.

Think of one of those clones from Star Wars that isn't doing what it was made to do. i.e. instead of blindly following orders, it starts to think for itself. It would be labeled as defective, out of line, faulty, useless, glitchy, unstable, unpredictable and that it needs reprogramming or something.
It makes sense when you add "..for X purposes." every time you see this.

e.g.
Bob is dangerous (for their purposes)
She says her husband is too unstable and unpredictable (for her purposes)
"You are so/too X (for my purposes)"

Someone's opinion or assessment isn't an all encompassing truth. It's usually just butthurt because you aren't doing what you are supposed to do according to someone, you aren't being their tool/utility like you were supposed to be. Kinda rolls with the whole shaming tactic thing. But I got sidetracked.. What I was trying to say, is that every fire needs its fuel. If the system was just according to its own definitions it wouldn't work, it has to do unjust things behind the scenes to continue running, to validate its own otherwise impossible existence.

EDIT: I think the bureaucratic maze is purposefully made to be difficult to navigate, so people would give up their [promised] rights rather than going through all the trouble to attain them. If everyone claimed what they are promised everything would crash.