Good article. There is no changing the National Security Warfare/Welfare State. It has to go. If people really want a government, it had better be a small one...a very small one.
Thanks- Thoreau's "The government that governs least...." etc. could accurately translate as "There's no government like no government". But the Warfare/Welfare State mentality and dependency is, indeed, too embedded in fact and in Statist minds to be changed without some form of enforced removal. Some believe "underthrowing" is The Way and The Truth. Maybe so - if the Deep State types and $35+T don't overwhelm those snarky passive intentions first. But maybe our great, great, great grandchildren can pull if off if guts are rediscovered in the centuries ahead...
Brian, I am currently having a discussion with Jacob Hornberger about limited government vs. anarchy. It's a good debate.
My two children never were married or had children so "My line is ended!" as the head of the White City famously said before running off in flames and leaping from the heights.
I wish the best for the future humans, but I'm not emotionally involved in it anymore.
I wonder what the maximum size a government can be without becoming a problem? One of the old philosophers said 30,000 for a direct democracy, but that seems way too big.
Personally I'd assume that anytime they get big enough to force people to pay a tax for anything, that they are past the point of usefulness and should be split up, that's if people are rational, they aren't, but anyway, that's my theory. If people form a government and then get together to point a gun at my head and say pay up or else, they are no longer the good guys working to protect my property, now they are thieves.
Most of their other powers and the corruption flows from the power to tax, they shouldn't have that power, it's nothing but trouble, same thing for controlling the currency and a whole lot more of course. But those two things give them their power, it's always been that way too, as far as I can tell anyway.
Whenever a government can tax they are no longer just people getting together to keep each other out of trouble, who want to live with similar basic rules, they become a state and that power to print and tax corrupts everything because it's all the result of theft. They can pretend to be moral and tax but they can't actually be moral and tax, so it just all goes to hell from there.
Philosophically most people think you can create anything and just expand it and it's supposed to act the same, realistically it rarely does because size can add complexity in very unpredictable ways, particularly in regards to factions forming.
Get bigger than about five hundred people and I bet they start trying to pick each other's pockets, that's my guess.
Brad Smith, I agree with your positions. The power to tax and control the currency are the big powers of the State. All the rest is just fine tuning.
I've read that a tribe's size is limited to about 170 people. After that, part of the tribe splits off to settle new areas and start its own tribe.
Bigger isn't always better. A thousand drones at $1,000/apiece ($1 million total cost) can take out or at least disable, an aircraft carrier worth billions.
"Philosophically, most people think you can create anything and just expand it, and it's supposed to act the same; realistically, it rarely does because size can add complexity in very unpredictable ways, particularly in regards to factions forming." --- Aye! There's the rub! The Bigger the Worser! If "govt" is limited to the smallest size/number necessary to effectively provide promised services, we may be on to something. Expansion and overreach become commonplace as seen when unnecessary "Departments" are created to assume the individual responsibility of the citizen. Dept of Ed. may be the exemplary example. Costs increase, funds are required, the force of tax collection isn't far behind. Government a la carte sounds do-able. As the insipid insurance commercial sez: Only pay for what you need.
Good article. There is no changing the National Security Warfare/Welfare State. It has to go. If people really want a government, it had better be a small one...a very small one.
Thanks- Thoreau's "The government that governs least...." etc. could accurately translate as "There's no government like no government". But the Warfare/Welfare State mentality and dependency is, indeed, too embedded in fact and in Statist minds to be changed without some form of enforced removal. Some believe "underthrowing" is The Way and The Truth. Maybe so - if the Deep State types and $35+T don't overwhelm those snarky passive intentions first. But maybe our great, great, great grandchildren can pull if off if guts are rediscovered in the centuries ahead...
Brian, I am currently having a discussion with Jacob Hornberger about limited government vs. anarchy. It's a good debate.
My two children never were married or had children so "My line is ended!" as the head of the White City famously said before running off in flames and leaping from the heights.
I wish the best for the future humans, but I'm not emotionally involved in it anymore.
Ok. Tell Bumper I send my best. Enjoy the chat.
I wonder what the maximum size a government can be without becoming a problem? One of the old philosophers said 30,000 for a direct democracy, but that seems way too big.
Personally I'd assume that anytime they get big enough to force people to pay a tax for anything, that they are past the point of usefulness and should be split up, that's if people are rational, they aren't, but anyway, that's my theory. If people form a government and then get together to point a gun at my head and say pay up or else, they are no longer the good guys working to protect my property, now they are thieves.
Most of their other powers and the corruption flows from the power to tax, they shouldn't have that power, it's nothing but trouble, same thing for controlling the currency and a whole lot more of course. But those two things give them their power, it's always been that way too, as far as I can tell anyway.
Whenever a government can tax they are no longer just people getting together to keep each other out of trouble, who want to live with similar basic rules, they become a state and that power to print and tax corrupts everything because it's all the result of theft. They can pretend to be moral and tax but they can't actually be moral and tax, so it just all goes to hell from there.
Philosophically most people think you can create anything and just expand it and it's supposed to act the same, realistically it rarely does because size can add complexity in very unpredictable ways, particularly in regards to factions forming.
Get bigger than about five hundred people and I bet they start trying to pick each other's pockets, that's my guess.
Brad Smith, I agree with your positions. The power to tax and control the currency are the big powers of the State. All the rest is just fine tuning.
I've read that a tribe's size is limited to about 170 people. After that, part of the tribe splits off to settle new areas and start its own tribe.
Bigger isn't always better. A thousand drones at $1,000/apiece ($1 million total cost) can take out or at least disable, an aircraft carrier worth billions.
170 sounds sensible to me.
"Philosophically, most people think you can create anything and just expand it, and it's supposed to act the same; realistically, it rarely does because size can add complexity in very unpredictable ways, particularly in regards to factions forming." --- Aye! There's the rub! The Bigger the Worser! If "govt" is limited to the smallest size/number necessary to effectively provide promised services, we may be on to something. Expansion and overreach become commonplace as seen when unnecessary "Departments" are created to assume the individual responsibility of the citizen. Dept of Ed. may be the exemplary example. Costs increase, funds are required, the force of tax collection isn't far behind. Government a la carte sounds do-able. As the insipid insurance commercial sez: Only pay for what you need.