>This risk is inherent in any political action (or inaction)

Is your premise here that all actions have the same risk of hijacking by a malicious player? I reject this premise. Solid institutions are usually an effective safeguard against this sort of thing, and radical political action tends to have as its goal to destabilize institutions.

Institutions, like laws, solidify existing power structures, whatever they may be. Though ideologically antipathetic toward each other, the bureaucracies of the U.S. Library of Congress and IngSoc's Ministry of Truth would be more similar than you might think.

I think we're disagreeing about the implied premise that trying to solve a charity problem (e.g. ending homelessness) necessitates radical political action, and therefore carries radical risk of regime change. I agree that radical political action carries a higher risk of regime change, but I don't agree that altrustic policies are remotely that radical. For example, I believe that solving homelessness wouldn't break the bank nor would it significantly affect our institutions or culture (except likely increasing somewhat the size and power of a few psych/medical and housing departments).

Glad we're both attuned to the risk of radical shake-ups though. :)

The thing is that, if you don't propose radical political action, there is little to no reason to be opposed to EA. The only reason I can think someone might be opposed to EA is that they believe the only way society might be improved is through revolt and total reform, and therefore any kind of charity-based solution would just be stopping The People from rising up as they rightly should.