But we're not comparing navies. Something like a Navy has an extraordinarily high up-front cost before you get any value at all from it.

People-focused forces (such as the police or an army) don't have the same issue.

Nor do technologies that are relatively cheap, such as the kind of computer hardware that would help a state surveil its own networks.

If anything, America is slipping compared to the rest of the world with regard to the quality of their computer programmers and other computer-focused developers. Even countries like Estonia could certainly find someone to help them develop competent surveillance if necessary.

The only limitation is that they'd probably not be able to attack the underpinnings of cryptology the way the NSA probably can, but we as computer professionals already know that usually the crypto is not the problem, it's the people or the implementation that is, and both of those are within reach of the Estonia state, if they really wish.

That's a bunch of baloney. Some people prefer freedom over surveillance and their government budget priorities actually reflect this.

You're surely heard of "non-appropriated funds"? Who says all government spending has to be tracked in a budget?

Alternatively, some countries do not fetishize surveillance and militarism, having experienced life in an empire that did.

So mere non-fetishization of militaries and surveillance is enough to prevent despots from gaining that power?

Remember we're not talking about the people foisting this on themselves, we're talking about the government taking on that power.