[extropy-chat] Re: Small government

[Technotranscendence]

On Monday, April 18, 2005 1:32 AM Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
wrote:
>> These government guys wonder why we don't
>> trust them and want smaller government.
>
> Most politicians know that they are not widely
> trusted as a class.  It hardly matters so long
> as their opponent constitutes a still worse
> choice.

Agreed.

> But how small a smaller government do you
> actually want?

Spike?  I can't speak for him.  Me?  None.  See "Free Market Anarchism:
A Justification" at:

http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html

> Roman emperors achieved very small
> governments

By what measure?  Compared to what at that time?

> but that situation didn't prove ultimately stable,
> not even for the Roman emperors themselves.

That may be so in some aspects, but the Roman Empire lasted several
centuries.

> Clearly smaller government isn't of itself always
> better government.

While I agree that smaller isn't always better, in general I think it is
usually better.  The less power and control -- and that's the measure I
would use -- government has over society, typically the better.  The
size -- as in number of people and budget -- usually correlates with
power and control because more people and money are needed to enforce
more controls.  (Of course, this is a rought measure because one
government might be more efficient than another as enforcing controls
and governments may use people formally outside government to extend
control as when the secret police use informants.)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html