An interesting read. And really makes you think about what "small government" means as well. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/11/tyler-cowen/the-paradox-of-libertarianism/
But as it grows larger it would be focused more on the important things, thus more efficient. A large efficient government with strong checks and balances is better then a large uncontrollable goverment, or even a small uncontrollable one. Size is relative, and we all know it's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean ;P
a larger govt does not lead to more efficiency...it leads to more delays. The size of the US Govt and the lack of ability to help out with katrina (even though they shouldn't have been responsible...thats what local govts are for. besides, only an idiot would not run from a hurricane that big). The govt needs to be reigned in, and democrats will do anything possible to keep that from happening.
My argument was only that a large Libertarian government would be more efficient then a large Republican OR Democratic government, since the article was saying that a Libertarian government would ultimately become larger because of it's efficiency which would make the people more comfortable with it being larger.
What a bunch of nonsense. Free market beats government-driven spending hands down. What did government ever do better and/or cheaper than a private company would do? It's a monopoly for God's sake, it can get away with any quaility or any price. And how did they bring us greater wealth or liberty? Before the rise of income tax, property tax, and all the waste that came with them, an average working man was able to own a house and his wife stayed home with the kids. He who rules the least, rules best.
That's the point the article was making, did you read it? It was saying that free market economics - even with low tax rates - increases the revenue to the government allowing it to spend more on social programs - because it can afford to. I think you should really the whole thing. It's rather interesting. Especially from a free market, low tax, stand point.
I dunno why. I think its silly. Private sector would do a far better and more efficient job at it. It's easy to be generous with other people's money - that seems to be the best excuse I can think of.
That's exactly why Congress won't privatize or abolish social security program - they keep stealing money from it, year after year. Just a mechanism to funnel taxpayer's money to corporate lobbists. Isn't it nice, it's illegal not to pay into SS (for most, anyway), but the money is not earmarked for anything and Congress can legally spend it on... uh, gold-plating every manhole in California, if they wish. People don't demand more government because it works well, they do it because they are susceptible to fraud. I doubt the government could handle civil unrest resulting from renaming Social Security tax into Protection tax