Bitcoin Forum

Isn't it obvious that the smallest government's in the past, the one's with the most principled constitutions, end up the largest and most totalitarian because of their starting momentum of economic freedom? If there is ever an odious debt in place, even a small tax on a man's labor that feeds the stealing parasite, it will grow and it will grow to collect more from us. 

So, if it is proven that humans are more productive and happier when given liberty and that no economy has truly failed because of said liberty, is it not viable to test the threshold and allow all of us to become totally free individuals in the name of our own happiness? Are we not suffering as-is anyways? Has not the repeated idea of ideal governance failed over and over again?

Why are we afraid to try something new?

Well, it's only logical, that if a small government ends up the biggest, then no government at all would turn into total totalitarianism.



 (PS: just try to say 'total totalitarianism' three times fast!)

+1.  It is interesting. This is why im hesitant whenever i hear someone advocate that the government become more lean and efficient.

The thought of a lean, efficient government honestly scares the bejeesus out of me.

Such a government can only be perceived under absolute delusion and deception. It will never exist very long. Once the people under it begin to thrive and truly become happy, it will perish under its own regime.

 :D

I've seen this argument before. It makes some sense, but it's not that strong. The same thing could be said of an absence of government then.

And, well, Switzerland started with a small federalized government centuries before US was born, and today it is still smaller than US federal government. The fact that they've kept their currency pegged to gold up to the 90s probably helped on that, but the question "why the same didn't happen in Switzerland" is still open, since all those banks there could have managed to end such pegging before, but they did not.

I believe the answer is hidden in Switzerland's very small population.

That's a possibility, both the small population and the small territory.

The small population makes it a bit harder for "interest groups" to largely benefit from the effects of public choice, since there's not a big crowd to which they can externalize their costs.
And a small territory makes it harder for government to abuse since people can easily emigrate. That's even stronger in Switzerland since everybody speaks at least one "foreign" language, so there are even less barriers to emigration. Also, the lack of a national language may make it harder to create a national identity, and therefore, less nationalism. Nationalism is clearly something that helps governments to expand.

But still, although I think it makes some sense, I wouldn't defend the theory of OP as something very certain.

I am too upset at the violation of my fellow humans, whom have suffered, to condone even the smallest amount of force against them. I can no longer play with the idea of a virtuous form of slavery. The trust has been long since broken. Too much suffering has already occurred to support possibly repeating the same mistakes again. I love my fellow man and myself all too much. While others are drawn to return to their abuser, I cannot.