Actually I'd quite like it if my government could block foreign phone calls that attempt to spoof local numbers.

If only as a way of stopping foreign criminal gangs from scamming the vulnerable.

The main reason this can't happen is because of international agreements that were made long before the internet age or this type of crime became a thing.

And there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently.

It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").

You are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.

Interesting! I see communication as communication, and the medium as completely separate. Does it really matter that much if I communicate an idea to another mind using squiggles on paper, dots on a screen, or recordings of sound waves?

I think I disagree with the premise of your argument that we're choosing between one of "pervasive wiretapping level invasiveness" or "internet companies cant be regulated"

Do you want the government to bug you and watch every interaction you have in your local store to find out if the store is breaking the law? But then how does the government know if the store is just not paying their taxes, or selling drugs?

Laws can be enforced without resorting to wiretapping everyone by just not accepting you can't catch every single violation; that true both online and offline.

I agree, some laws are dumb and stupid, some inhumane, some simply impractical, and we should be above them. Sadly we aren't because we don't have an army and populace. If only I was in charge I would... But the sad reality is that I'm not.