The problems with government are so many and so great that I have come to view it is a mere stopgap in the few areas in which the private sector fails. I list the reasons below:

1. In anything short of absolute democracy, which no country has yet had, government officials have more power than the people who elect them. Power tends to corrupt because it puts people above the usual consequences for their actions. For this reason, the government tends to be worse than the people it represents.

2. Those who seek political office are, in a representative democracy, seeking power over others. People who are so driven by the will to power tend to have accompanying undesirable characteristics. For this reason, the government tends to be worse than the people.

3. Even if absolute democracy were achieved, it would allow the majority to do whatever it pleased with the minority, which is itself a form of corrupting power and inherently unfair, since the majority is not inherently correct.

4. Constitutionalism, if it overrides the will of the majority, results in a dictatorship of those who interpret the Constitution, and this power can and will be misused.

5. All of the above seems like an argument for anarchy. However, long-term anarchy is impossible, since once anarchy is in place, all have power over all others, and since people are unequal in their natural ability to seize power, a "survival of the fittest" scenario results in ever-shifting de facto dictatorships.

If the above is true, it seems that a limited government is simply the least of the evils and that no political system can improve society. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Although I agree with much of what you said, it think a small, limited and targeted government does improve society. By protecting the rights of its citizens a government actually does far better than the alternative. The problem comes in when the small, limited, targeted government becomes a monolith like ours.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Agreed. A well-targeted government with a limited role improves society whereas anarchy is degenerative or static.
Without some government in place, people would not be able to improve society through any kind of institution.
I tend to think well-targeted is more important than small, though well-targeted implies as small as possible (efficiency).
But that makes government a tool for good, by creating a frame within which people can contribute to society rather than being forced into working for the glory of the strong and ambitious without choice (other than death).

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

What makes limited government, which still involves some degree of the corruption of power, anything more than a limited evil?

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

A limited government protects the rights of its citizens. You may get some level of corruption because it would still collect taxes. But with checks and balances you could avoid much in the way of power corruption. A limited, small government, by definition, has less power. And less power=less corruption. In any event, I will take some corruption over anarchy any day. Because it's pretty much one or the other. Government does have valuable and valid role. Playing Nanny isn't it, however.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It's a limited evil in short-term thought. But since it has the potential for increased good overall.
People have made large gains in social mobility, political equality, quality of life, and other things over the course of limited government that they could not have had in anarchy or overbearing government.
Anarchy is the default. So limited government is a change made to that which exerts some bureaucratic control but at the same time increases individual freedom and general prosperity.
Since complete freedom has never existed, it seems silly to call the best thing so far a limited evil, when the complete lack of that evil is worst. Government is not an evil if compared to anarchy, since wven a dictatorship has greater stability and living conditions than pure anarchy... which is essentially the same thing but without a legitimate structure.
Government is basically a good, it just does no create good linearly. Rather it depends on to what extent and to what roles it is given and how it handles them. Government is essentially a proxy for coexistence and teamwork.
If we did this without a government, I don't believe anarchy would be the word for it.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

I used to think that, with a stable framework put in place, people would improve themselves morally. Unfortunately, now I really don't think that they would, hence my pessimism. At any rate, limited government within a representative democracy is the least of all available evils.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Define morality first.
The best system for improving morality seems to me would be the one that gives the maximum allowance to exploring and acting morally.
If your definition of morality is too strict then of course nothing will improve morality.
But if improvement of self and society is your criteria then it seems limited government has greater potential than anarchy. People are more likely to act morally when they see a good reason to (ie know the suffering of the homeess) and are likely to do more when it doesn't interfere with their lives... meaning that a system is best which allows morality without self-destruction. If you believe that morality requires the risk of self destruction, then I am afraid you have set the the bar too high for reasonable expectation.
With a view of better morality rather than perfect morality,, limited government has a greater potential than anarchy.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

You're right, JavaBlack. I am simply expecting too much of others because I expect too much of myself. I've been on a very bad guilt trip lately, but I'll spare you the details. Thank you for waking me up to reality.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Anarchy is the pipedream. It would be awesome if it would work, but it is not a sustainable system. Thus for the proliferation and securing of our liberty, a small constrained government is required. I don't think government is inherently good or evil, though it is inherently dangerous because if we do not actively constrain it ourselves, it can grow past its constraint and ultimately infringe upon that which we created it to protect. But this is the natural course of unrestrained government, and we have seen it time after time through out the history of mankind.

Ultimately power will corrupt, and those in charge will be swayed. Thus it is the duty of the people to prevent against it and actively servo the system to discourage this behavior. It is a duty we have well been laxed with as of late, and thus the government is in the state it currently resides. Freedom and liberty have never been givens, even after they are won the fight to keep them continues. For the very thing necessary to ensure and secure the blessings of liberty is the thing which can strip them if we are not diligent in our duties and responsibilities as a free people.

Morality is not the realm of government, that is an issue for the individual. The government is to do nothing more than secure the blessings of liberty to We the People, and to do the few duties we told them to do in the Constitutional.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH