When did governments go from trying to act in the best interests of their citizens so as to make their lives better and safer to restricting individual freedoms so as to create bigger profits for private companies?
Thus has it ever been. The history of government is the history of privilege and it's protection. That the Enlightenment of the 18th Century brought forth modern notions of representative democracy was in large part a reaction to the failure and catastrophic overthrow of the feudal order that had existed prior to that time. The American and the French revolutions made it clear that some form of safety valve that allowed class conflict to be mediated and ameliorated was better than the alternatives as far as the interests of the upper classes.
Well, if you want the strongest, rawest and purest version of the RealPolitik WeltSchmerz; you should start with the basic texts.
Hobbes, Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Rousseau. If you are really a glutton for punishment go on to Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche. If you are wanting a slightly more americanized version; Howard Zinn's "A People's history of the United States" is a good and fairly accessible book.
Just remember that actual history is messy and not necessarily rational and that any interpretation ( including mine ) of historical events is more wrong the more sweeping and all-encompassing it is.
Your mind was blown from the idea that a government does not necessarily exist to serve the interest of its people, or the little historical blurb?
In any case, the heavily ingrained belief of government benevolence in contemporary Western societies, is horrific. But not surprising, with minds like Edward L. Bernays at work (his 1928 book Propaganda should be mandatory reading for everyone).
I don't mean to speak for the person you're addressing, but I suspect this was the part that was surprising: "some form of safety valve that allowed class conflict to be mediated and ameliorated was better than the alternatives as far as the interests of the upper classes".
That's not an obvious truth, and doesn't deserve self-important snark.
I've also read 'Propaganda', and would also recommend it despite its age.
It's been obvious since before Bismarck introduced the welfare state in the 1840's onwards.
His opposition tried to tarnish his image by claiming he was introducing "state socialism", after which he himself started using the same term about his welfare programs, and explicitly made the point that it was intended to counter the influence of the socialists and calm the masses.
Bismarck, which was an ultra-conservative monarchist, actually went further than the majority of the socialist opposition at the time in anticipation of further demands, in order to quell their support.
Another series by Curtis, "The Century of the Self", explores similar themes in the context of psychology (Freud and Reich), propaganda (Bernays), and the rise of market-based democracy:
