Completely false. Not all forms of government are subject to tyranny of the majority. All forms of government are susceptible to tyranny, but tyranny comes in different flavors. Tyranny of the majority is only one kind of tyranny. Democracy's weak spot however is tyranny of the majority. Small government does not protect against tyranny of the majority... because the majority in a locale can still oppress the minority. You need checks and balances. And even those checks and balances don't eliminate it, as can still be seen today.InsuranceGuy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:59 amAll forms of government are susceptible to tyranny of the majority, but small government is less susceptible than large government. There are numerous recent examples to prove this is not true including gay marriage and legalizing drugs being pioneered by states and historically by the framers in the constitution requiring supermajorities for major decisions and the addition of the bill of rights to protect individual rights for minority groups.pmward wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:04 am I don't see ANYTHING from 1900 that would make me want to go back there. And small government, as I mentioned, is strongly susceptible to tyranny of the majority. You NEED the checks and balances from the upper level. If the upper level doesn't do their job and is asleep at the wheel, you wind up with situations like we had pre-civil war where "small" government turned a blind eye to local governments allowing slavery. Your small government utopian ideal has been tried and failed. Sure, a Darwinian small government may selfishly benefit you over larger government, but it would not benefit the whole. We need to step out of our small self-centered world view and be willing to look at things from different angles. Small government is a false utopian ideal that sounds great on paper, but actually plays out pretty shitty in real life. Taken to it's extreme it turns into a Darwinian nightmare where all but the strongest and fittest in the majority stuffer. Balance is the key. Government that is not too big, not too small. Not too "capitalist", but. not too "socialist". You need to support innovation and allow companies to grow, but at the same time you have a responsibility to take care of and stick up for the weak, minorities, sick, poor, old, the environment, etc. Any extreme taken to its conclusion ends in misery. Balance is the key. You need the federal level of government to ensure the state and local levels don't stray too far from the beaten path.
Pre-civil war small government did not turn a blind eye to slavery but saw it as problematic as did the rest of the world. America was no different than other nations and as all developed nations outlawed slavery so did America. If anything the federal government not working with local governments extended post-civil war discrimination and segregation for 100 years. Contrary to your opinion I purport small government has been thwarted not by failure but by political power grabs.
Large government on the other hand seems to be the utopian ideal which has been tried and failed. Our government is bigger than ever and what do we have to show for it? The US government spends more per student than any other nation and yet we have depressingly average results. The post office, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, loses billions every year while FedEx/UPS are smoking $100 bills. I could go on and on yet the clear message is that big governments spend a lot more and deliver considerably less.
If minorities are being denied their God given rights or liberties, let's get the federal government involved if states aren't already pioneering the path. This is the role of the federal government as dictated by the constitution for heaven's sake. As far as taking care of the weak, sick, poor, old, etc we can do that much better locally in our communities/charities without the federal government for a fraction of the price.
Your justifications of Americas acceptance of slavery doesn't even warrant a response, it is a ridiculous stretch.
I think you missed my point entirely on large vs small government. I'm not pro large government. Both large and small have tradeoffs. They both have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. When you have a mixture of both you tend to get the best outcomes. If you understand the PP you understand the benefits of diversification, well diversification in government helps in the same way diversification in a portfolio helps. One strategies strengths make up for another weaknesses. You cannot leave society to total Darwinism and expect life to be reasonably fair and happy for all. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, government would have stayed that way and wouldn't have moved forward. Why did it change and move forward? Because people were unhappy and called for change. Going back to that would be a regression, a step backwards.
Your arguments about charity fall flat. Charity already exists and not enough people support them. People in aggregate are selfish and self-centered. If the government didn't step up to help them, no one would. The evidence is already there to this end. When the Federal government was small and the states had more power, were things equal then? HELL NO!!! Did people take care of the poor, minorities, old, sick, etc? HELL NO!!! All these utopian fantasies you have already have been tested in the real world and failed. Have you ever even questioned these beliefs you have to see if they really are true, or have you just blindly accepted them? They have actually been tested in the real world, holes were clearly poked in them, and people were unhappy and demanded change. What more evidence do you need?
I'm not saying we are perfect today. Far from it. I don't know what the perfect government is; I don't have the answers; but neither do you. The greatest minds of every generation going back centuries have debated these things. The ultimate answer is not going to be here on the gyroscopic investing forums. But what I can say with certainty is that we are much better off than we were back then. I can also say that we will continue to evolve as the decades and centuries continue. New ideas will come up and be tested, and as always happens the wheat will separate from the chaff, we will take what worked and throw out what didn't, and life/society/government will continue to evolve. And 100 years from now will be better than today. And 200 years from now will be better than 100 years from now. etc. Eventually people will look back on our time as archaic in the same way we look back on feudalism now.