Difference between revisions of "Small government"
(explanation) |
(reference link) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* {{l/sub|government has a monopoly on force|myths}} | * {{l/sub|government has a monopoly on force|myths}} | ||
* {{l/sub|monopolies would not exist without government|myths}} | * {{l/sub|monopolies would not exist without government|myths}} | ||
| + | ==Links== | ||
| + | ===Reference=== | ||
| + | * {{issuepedia}} | ||
Revision as of 20:57, 13 December 2014
It is believed by many that making government "smaller", or even dismantling it altogether, will result in a more peaceful and less coercive society.
The method almost always proposed for accomplishing this is to reduce or eliminate taxes (especially income tax) in order to "starve the (government) beast" of the revenue it needs in order to operate.
What will happen if such initiative succeeds, however, is not absence of government but an oligarchic quasi-government that is more deeply hierarchical and more coercive than what we have at present. This is largely because destroying government will not destroy political power; it will only remove the means by which we attempt to channel political power towards the general good. Political power comes from technology, not from government.
Some myths about small government:
- government is the source of all political power
- government is the source of all oppression
- government has a monopoly on force
- monopolies would not exist without government