Name one time in history where small government outside of monarchy has worked.
The examples Iāve looked at all resulted in feud, corruption and eventual conquest by foreign powers.
Discussion
People like to advocate for small government (whatever this means - how small?), but thereās no historical precedent that I could find where it actually works. You have to have absolute rulers for it to work for some time , but ultimately that power corrupts them.
The USA became the must powerful nation on Earth with extremely limited government. No federal taxes, no federal agencies. Individual liberty and individual free agency, etc. Very little government. All this before the introduction of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (forced taxation). That's when America was fundamentally changed into a socialistic big government crap show.
Now it is nothing more than crony socialism ... heading into a communofacistic society.
People do much better without forced-collectivist governments. (aka "big government")
Why should a centralized government be smaller? It probably mostly depends on the services a state provides. When the state provides services as public transport for all villages, there needs to be a fund for this, when the national streets are maintained in contracted from the government, there needs to be a fund for it. For Schools, for Military, for Police, for universities and science, for independent press support, for local farming, open provided statistics for all within and out of government.
These are all Services we invest in our society in Switzerland. And it is payed by taxes. Which does not mean it is all government. It is a system to pay services collateral. It is a social investment, I pay happily. Since all profit from its fruits.
And when the government wants to expand the budget in some direction everyone gets to vote about it. Like this we have a very close connection from voters to politicians. Every year we vote for about 12 legislative changes, where every swiss citicen can participate. Plus the local votings.
I hear very good things about the swiss democratic system, though I also hear that lately the central banks have been able to corrupt even that to some extent?
I mean also in switzerland there is corruption. But I think corruption is something a society has to minimize with good rules. So that the corruptable regret it sooner or later. When most corruptables regret it hardly I think the rules are quiet well.
I do not beleave, that there is a way to prevent corruption.
I just come to read comments šæ
We need to challenge our own opinions and beliefs or succumb to confirmation bias and planted ideas that have no anchors in reality.
There's a book called "Why Nations Fail" it's a case study of all nation sized sovereigns to have a ever existed and focusses on this very conflict, in it you'll find many examples of the kind of government you've asked for. They all failed eventually, but so did every nation state to exist ever as well.
I assume you read it so you can give one example of smal govt. society that lasted?
Athens?, roman republic? Multiplice city states like Florence during the Renaissance, and the chatgpt answer I posted, though Im not aware of the dutch republic and the swiss one myself
I guess Roman Republic is a good example and lasted fairly long despite some elements of monarchy like consuls and dictators. I am not sure what the province rulers were like - I imagine they had significant military resources and backing of the consul and senate.
Idk but chatgpt did give some answers
Also just to spark a debate: does it matter who rules the land if they don't rule you?
USA, when it was founded
civil war?
i know after it was founded, but still crucially divisive
More about technology & "what do we do with the idle slaves everywhere." The social atructure was already set, and now 150 years later, America is back to the pre-civil-war 2 class system, enhanced by fiat monopoly credits that the workers use to trade among themselves, and unburdened by the racial constraints of the working class in the past. Slavery with extra steps.
Nope. The "misinformation in America" problem...started with Benjamin Franklin.
Read about the Wendat peoples who were first encountered by the Jesuits in the 16th century.
Or the Zana-Malata people, who were the descendants of pirates.
Conquest by other, more structured, and hierarchical societies doesnāt necessarily mean it doesnāt workā¦..
The Swiss model is at least interesting: https://newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/docs_researchnotes_2018_June_nDF_RampD_Note_Swiss_Model_Final.pdf
The ability to steal from the future through fiat eliminates any chance a small government could work in our modern clown world. Once a small government āstateā thrives, it would be invaded and conquered by a state that steals from its own future. The small government would have to set up defenses aka spend money, which attracts the ghouls that pilfer the people and then modern usa happens.
No government has ever worked, and so it is absurd to think someone would ever agree a real life government is an ideal example of their personal ideology. It wasn't real Communism and it wasn't real Capitalism.
There is no shame in these claims. All governments thus far have left something to be desired; they left a gap. That's how political ideologies are able to continue to exist. That's why these conversations are so engaging.
Don't spend too much time looking up your own examples and reading the thoughts of people you will never meet. Instead, use some of that time to debate political ideology based on your own ideas, and the ideas of the people you argue with. It may be discussion "on paper", but at least you would be talking directly with the person rather than partaking in a proxy conversation.
It worked before farming was introduced when tribes migrated for food. Once people had stored resources it all changed and enabled larger populations.
Native Americans. Check out David Greaber's book 'The Dawn of Everything'
Tribes. Conflict. Conquered.
People might be conquered, but the life philosofy of those people live in modern freedom movementsI. I am not sure that a tribe is a right label for a non-hierarchical society consisting of millions of individuals.
Native Americans never consisted of millions of people. Tribes were relatively small and in frequent conflict. My point is that tribal societies eventually succumb to more organized ones and usually donāt have as peachy of a life as some imagine.
Take that into modern times with modern tech and youād have an even tougher time staying around unless protected by some agreement with another nation state strong enough to defend you.
Well the antroplogical evidence that DG presents in his book suggest otherwise. Either read it or don't, no point arguing about something you don't know the content off.
Evidence of what? I need to read a book to know Native Americans didnāt number in millions? Huh?
Yes. You asked a question and I thought you geniunly wanted to find some evidence of that. It seems that is not the case. The book contains lots of interesting examples based on anthropological research. One of them is about the societal organisation of native Americans, and how what we have been thought in schools is mostly a misconception.
Donāt all states of all kinds eventually all end in feud, corruption, and conquest by foreign powers? Thatās the life cycle of every nation. There are no permanent states like there are no permanent people. Some will live long lives some short, in some cases because of the choices they made, others because of the choices of others or happenstance. What is your definition of āworkedā how long does it need to be around to work?
Fair point. Iām not really sure how to define āworkedā. I guess my point is more about the presence of strong political structures that tend to enable longer lasting states. Lack of such structures usually results in more internal conflict and weaker defenses.
Small government isn't the solution; dismissal of representation is. Once a populous gets so large as to require representatives to govern it, it is too large.