hi dig,
i wouldn't disagree that government can be too big and can be improved. and it can be too small. this is the point. for each environment, you figure what provides a net benefit and what provides a net cost. the things that are costly, you reduce. the things that are beneficial, you increase until there is nothing to gain.
in observing the particular realm of action, you gradually learn how to do government better over time.
there are thousands of things government is useful for. the fact there are other areas it doesn't do as well - or where the value is poorly understood - isn't an argument against government per se. it's just an argument to reduce one arm of government.
for me, the traditional conservative incremental view of government is perfectly reasonable. the problem is with the argument that because there are examples of inefficiency, all government is necessarily valueless or inefficient. that's the modern conservative ideology speaking. it's just a simple failure of logic - like assuming that if you see a three legged dog, then all dogs must have three legs.
| 