Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The purpose of a large government, is primarily for the purpose of the unification of people. If we look over time at countries which have large governments. The problem wasn't so much that the governments were small before and needed to be larger. Its that, the governments weren't unified. It isn't so much that a large government is somehow good for the economy. The truth is, economies always become stronger by liberalizing them, not regulating them. Where there are actual benefits to large government in regards to the economy. Is in unifying markets, and forcing them to remain "free."
For instance if we look at Germany. In the past, several different principalities existed, which had small-scale government. And the major rivers in Germany many times crossed several of those principalities. And each of those would tend to "tax" the goods passing through them, as a way to make a profit for themselves. The problem with this is that, if there are three states, where two are trying to trade with each other, and the goods have to pass through the third state. And that third state is charging crazy fees for those goods to pass through it. Thus getting rich simply because of its position relative to the trade of others. Then this is creating an artificial barrier to trade. And the only way to solve the problem, is to abolish any obstacles to trade. And generally, this is best accomplished by simply unifying the entire trade route into a single nation. If you study history, you'll realize that trade is the primary purpose of empires.
The problem with having a small government and a large state. Is that it doesn't create any sort of unity. And even worse, if the nation begins to become wealthy. Inherently, some groups or parts of the nation will become more wealthy than others. This creates resentment and hostility. And generally reinforces the divisions in the country, and further creates disunity. Thus, the government has to create a "facade" of fairness, by redistributing some of the money from the wealthy to the less wealthy, for the sake of unity and its own preservation.
Secondly, your nation has to be strong enough to resist the influence of foreign nations. Which means it needs to be as unified as possible. With a strong centralized military, and "patriots" who would gladly give their lives for their nation.
If we go to the question of whether or not you can have a modern small-government state. The answer is probably no. But it isn't because a small government state would somehow be detrimental to the economy(it wouldn't). Or that it would be anti-science(it wouldn't). The problem is that, a modern state with a small government, simply wouldn't last.
Think of it like this. Look at "Civil Rights". Whether or not you agree with everything in the Civil Rights Act, or if you think it was constitutional, or if you think it has a good outcome. The ultimate reality is that, it had to be done. Had the Civil Rights act not passed. We would have continued to have riots and violence to the point that this country would have been torn apart, in the middle of the Cold War.
What would have happened to the independence of Americans. Had the country been torn apart by ethnic resentment? Would this country even exist today, without a standing national army, and national public education? The truth is, without the expansive government we have had over the last 100 years. Its likely that this country would have fallen into communism and been torn apart.
For instance, what would have happened to Europe during and after WWII, had the United States not entered WWII. Or not actively assisted Europe in fighting against communism after WWII.
Thus, the reality of the modern nation-state. Is that government is necessary, because unity is necessary for the preservation of a nation. But that is only important because of the existence of other competing nation-states. In the absence of competing nation-states, then the impetus for the creation of your own nation-state simply doesn't exist.
Which is why discussion of the dark ages is so important in this discussion. First, the dark ages weren't all that dark. And secondly, the problem with the dark ages wasn't really a problem with religion itself. The problem with the dark ages, was really a problem with the political system in Europe at the time. Which tended to be very small-scale, and hostile to outsiders. Eventually culminating in the highly local feudalism which took hold and lasted until the end of the middle-ages.
In reality, the presence of Christianity or absence of Christianity wouldn't have solved the problems in Europe. In fact, in the early years of the dark ages, almost all of Northern Europe wasn't even Christian. And the end of the middle ages wasn't even related to the absence of religion. People were very much religious throughout the Renaissance for instance.
In reality, the dark ages were probably ended as a result of the crusades, the expanding role of trade, the invasion of Europe by the Mongols, the increasing hostility towards the occupation of Europe by the Muslims, and the plague.
All of these things required more unity in Europe. And a general liberalization of their economies, which caused an end to feudalism. And more of an openness to outsiders(at least in regards to other Christians).
In reality, the real purpose of the concept of the nation state and the empires before them. Was to abolish restrictions to trade. Within a nation or empire, you generally have "free trade and free immigration". The question then is, do you even need a nation state, if you already have free trade and free immigration? Especially if you also have free markets?
The question then is, do you even want to live in a nation-state? And why? Considering that the basis of a nation-state, is a large standing army. The ever-present danger of the institution of a draft. Limitations to freedom of movement of goods and people. And the social acceptance of the belief that everyone's life, property and abilities, are property of the state.
A much more detailed explanation than mine was, with a lot of good information. We disagree about how important the Roman Catholic Church was in creating the society which led to the Dark Ages (which, as you said, weren't as dark as many believe) and the role of the Reformation movement in ending the Dark Ages, but you shed quite a bit of light on the other factors which were involved.
I always ask these people to name just one successful, small government, religious/ conservative, country. I have never gotten a single answer in over 2 years on this site, or others. Amazing.
An inter global command center for a religious organization that rakes in hundreds of billions a year providing humans with a comfortable retirement in the afterlife. The decisions made there, affect the entire planet and have for at least 1500 years.
Best to go in early May before it get's warm and humid.
$300 won't get you a parking spot. Easier to find a room in Tuscany than it is at the Vatican on short notice.
Probably because government like power, corrupts absolutely... but we need more of it, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
If our government became a conservative Christian government, there would be a plethora of new laws regulating society's conduct and action.
the reality is that government corruption is the problem. as government grows in size and power, it becomes more corrupt. and it doesnt matter if it is based in religion, or the lack there of. i would say that fortunately our constitution would prevent many of the possible restrictive laws that an overpowering religious government would like to put in place, but since our current government is using the constitution as toilet paper, i doubt that would happen. we need to get honesty and integrity back into government if we are going to survive as a nation. and the way to do that is to start by getting the media out of the government, stop them from being cheerleaders for one side and hammering the other. the second thing we need to do is put term limits on ALL elected officials, and set it up so that once they hit that term limit they are BARRED from EVER serving in an elected position again, as well as being barred from being a lobbyist. in fact they should be barred from working for government in ANY capacity. third, we need to eliminate professional lobbyists from the halls of government completely. once this is done across the nation, we can get the government back to working for the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
