Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonyedgecombe | Hacker News Reader

It always struck me that one of the weaknesses of the argument for small government is that business will fill the void and be far less accountable than politicians.

View on HN

It basically replaced voting with a ballot with voting with your pocketbook.

Which essentially means the rich have more votes.

That's the biggest weakness I see.

Isn't the entire argument based on the belief that businesses would do a better job than politicians at being a government? And that "the invisible hand" is an acceptable replacement to accountability?

It’s not all about money, though. Power and influence, while not cheap, are a different motivator

Small government doesn't mean no government. You still need government in place to make sure that rules are enforced and monopolies don't form and to help bridge moats so that companies have to actually compete.

What people who support small government tend to mean is a government that doesn't interfere with free markets and doesn't regulate business (and probably for the Federal government to be dissolved or weakened considerably.)

They seem to want to get as close to anarcho-capitalism as they can without actually not having states.

A weaker Federal government would mean stronger state governments. It would incentivize states to compete, and we all know competition is good.

I don't think most are saying "no" involvement.

Think that's exactly why some people are keen on small government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com