Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote: |
On the other hand, we have direct evidence that a similar cycle happens in government, where the more it grows the rate of growth accelerates. With every other product people eventually reach a point where they are sated, but with government people demand more the more there is. Once that happens positive feedback sets in, and soon you have tyrannies that are too big and powerful to fear either upstarts reformers or their own citizenry.
Yes, this is why the people must be vigilant against tyranny in my model, just like they must be vigilant against big government in yours. But I think a powerful, benevolent government is a better reward for their vigil than a weak, benevolent one.
That's all well and good when discussing theoretical models. Even I can discuss theoretical models of a powerful benevolent government. But when it comes to real world application that theoretical model falls apart.
Take the case of Rockefeller Center. I do not know if the example I am thinking about still stands (I haven't checked but they probably still stand). If you look carefully you will see two old buildings in that center. They are not part of the center. Back when Rockefeller was building his impressive center, two property owners wouldn't sell. Well, one would sell, but he was hoping to become absurdly rich when he found out who wanted to buy his house. The other simply wouldn't sell.
This was back in the days when businessmen allegedly had unlimited unchecked power. Allegedly they could do anything and nobody could stop them. Because he was so unrestrained by a powerful benevolent government, Rockefeller was unable to buy those two houses. Now, in modern times, now that we have a powerful benevolent government he would simply bribe the city government to take them by eminent domain (reference Kelo v. New London) since we now have a powerful benevolent government to protect us from that. But back when there were no protections of that sort Rockefeller was completely unable to take those to houses.
You see, the danger is that when you discuss theory people will mistake it with discussing real world implementation. In practice there are only two types of people who discuss big benevolent government, and once you have determined that someone isn't discussing theory as you are you can try to figure out which of the two types you are viewing.
One is the sinister type. They know damn well that there's no such thing as a powerful
benevolent government in the real world, but hopes that by talking about such that he can fool others into giving the government power for him to use. His hope is that he may become part of that powerful but not benevolent government, he will be part of the ruling class in some way.
The other is the useful fool. These kinds are lied to by the sinister types, and have actually come to believe that the sinister types actually care about them and will treat them well if they give the sinister types all they want. A sucker is born every minute, and they all believe in the theory of the powerful benevolent government without being part of that ruling class.
There may be a third type, the Sinister Fool. The Sinister Fool knows there's no such thing as a
benevolent big government but advocates it anyway in order to have everyone controlled for the sake of control itself. This person, if he exists, is actually proud of being a small part of something big and evil. Interestingly this person has the potential to become the worst of dictators,
as described here starting in the third paragraph.
Yes, some may worry that without strong government control that the corporations would be unstoppable, just like Rockefeller was when faced with two holdouts.