Current Events > I'm a proponent of medium government.

(+) Yeah! (+)

A government too big and you have industry utilizing local government to institute ordinances that prop up barriers to competition, thus stifling the free market (see telecoms/ISP industry). Or they may utilize regulatory capture (like using the FCC to bypass several failed attempts at removing net neutrality).

A government too small and you have industry without any sort of checks and balances, allowing them to use money instead to bully out any new competitors either by collusion with other top industry leaders to prevent a race to the bottom, thus making the higher start-up costs of new businesses lead to their demise, or otherwise simply creating a vertical and/or horizontal monopoly, thus stifling free markets. (See Bell before it became AT&T)


With medium government, there exists a balance where it's not enough for industry to utilize true regulatory capture, but it still provides enough of a thorn in the paw of the top in any respective industry.

You see, capitalism is excellent for rapid growth. And rapid growth by definition is cancer. To have your cake and eat it too, you must harvest the growth before it gets out of hand. Routinely. Just fuck with the top of any industry constantly. Not enough so you overcome them, but not so little that they run unopposed. Of course a balance is always hard to strike. But enough with this false dichotomy bullshit guys. Both sides have a kernel of truth here.

A free market cannot exist without some government involvement, but also, too much also eliminates a free market.
---