I don’t agree with this, selective enforcement at least has a ceiling of what you can be arrested for. Arbitrary arrest does not have such a ceiling.

I think the above poster's point is that there are so many laws on the books that effectively everyone is above said ceiling. Thus, selective enforcement is functionally identical to arbitrary arrest.

No, because the fine, jail time, and infamy of "public noodle eating" or whatever has a hard cap. Selective enforcement can only get harassers so far.

China's harassers get to use the much more powerful "lock up whoever I want for no reason at all, forever"

Sure, public noodle eating may not have a long sentence. But carring a lobster in a plastic bag is a felony: https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dd-7o9xYp7eE&ved=2ahUKEwjuy...

There are enough laws on the books to lock people up at essentially any time if the police care enough to do so.

As the size of a set of rules approaches infinity, it becomes indistinguishable from selective enforcement.

Which is what makes America, with elected and political DA's, so much less of a beacon compared to normal democratic countries where that would be considered insane.