They were able to do it because the government is/was huge. If it wasn't and if they did not have so much power, there wouldn't have been anyone to lobby.
Small government logged into chat. Wouldn't smaller government make their efforts more effective as the dollar per person corruption would be higher?
And then we go, "oh gee, we don't have enough people to audit white collar crimes because the Small Government crusaders gutted the IRA, for some reason".
It's not about small government, it's about an ineffective, castrated government, so companies like Exxon can steamroll it and have their own way to profit.
Exxon would love nothing more than this... small government.
It's not about having a smaller government, it's about having no government at all and third parties competing law enforcements and third parties competing private courts.
If they didn't have to even try to persuade the imperfect agent of the people to let them do what they want, they would stop doing what they want on their own?
Yea! If only the government was smaller, and lacked any teeth to do anything, Exxon wouldn't have to lobby anyone to exploit the commons for their own profit!... wait.
The problem with this line of thought (and generally libertarian ideology) is the requirement of a threat of violence to conduct commerce. The violence can't come from the parties involved because if there's an imbalance it ruins the neutrality of trade. But the threat of a violent outcome (jail, or fine with physical enforcement) must be present to prevent theft.
Once you accept that you have to give a 3rd party the monopoly on violence you are now effectively giving them the authority to do as they please. You can wax on about how government should have less power on internet forums, but organizations with power and weapons don't give up that power without using the weapons.
I am not proposing anarchy. You are confusing socialism with libertarianism. Socialism is violence. If you don't trust me you can test it out by refusing to pay your tax.
Without a government and with a system of competing law enforcements backed by armies who setup different laws, and a system of competing private court systems, we may get fairer treatment.
Perfect justice is impossible to achieve (someone will always be able to bribe someone else), but by spreading out the corruptible people and by putting them in competition on a market (where reputation matters), you will get a fairer system than the disgusting monopoly we have right now.
Lots of groups with their own armies is just asking for constant fighting. There is a reason that each state doesnt have its own standing army. The founders saw how such a system worked in Europe with countries using war frequently to take what they wanted.
