No, that's oversimplistic and silly.
I'm all for having leaner operations as far as that goes, but let's say there's a new law restricting people from bribing elected officials, complete with a funded enforcement arm.. is that 'less' or 'more' government? 'less' or 'more' liberty?
You will never, ever, ever have a government that's too small to be worth bribing.
Sure, orchestrating a state that has 0 returns to bribery is likely not possible without complete anarchism. That being said, not every state is going to have ridiculous returns to bribery (or more generally, "bureaucracy hacking") that we see today.
Before he became public enemy #1 and his sketchy financial dealings were uncovered, what returns did Martin Shkreli get because of weird FDA rules about generics and clinical trials? There may be some aspects of the FDA that are beneficial such that the benefits outweigh the costs (although off the top of my head I can't think of any), but clearly a smaller FDA with less (arbitrary) rule-making and enforcement authority would not have allowed Shkreli to explode the price of Daraprim.
Shkreli is a single example, but this happens all the time. Environmental protection departments are reluctant to punish land developers because they depend on the various land developers' fees for their budget, but will go after individuals with exorbitant fines for relatively mundane infractions. And we could talk all day about the ridiculousness of zoning regulations and the various zoning commissars/bureaucrats who effectively make small-scale, grass-roots, spontaneous land development impossible, and essentially only allow large developers or corporations who can afford to navigate the legal minefield of zoning rules.
Ideally, I'd like to have the returns to bribery be zero, but if that's not possible, then somewhere less than one would be nice. I have seen no real estimates of the returns to bribery in the West today - I'm not even sure such research exists yet - but I would guess that the returns are significantly greater than 1.
But none of that shit fits on a bumper sticker saying 'taxation is theft' or whatever, and it'll never be a byline on Fox News. I couldn't even give a short, vaguely accurate description of the FDA trials process, let alone an expert description. I think there are 4 stages? That's where I cap out. It sounds like you couldn't, either. But the current system, whatever its flaws, doesn't allow people to ship poisonous babyfood like happened in China a few years ago. Successful reform preserves the whole "don't kill people" thing while increasing efficiency.
Platitudes about 'small government' and 'liberty' don't enable reform, they hamper it by banishing thought. Look at the tea party's legislative record.
If we, the society, don't fill it with a government and try to control it (admittedly not an easy, and always imperfect, endeavour), it will be fill by something that have not our interest as a priority.
Of course, this doesn't make sense for people who think, literally, that "there is no such thing as society" [1].
There is no difference between an unchecked corporation and a corrupt state. The answer doesn't lie at either end, but in a balance.
There is another difference: one of those grants voting (and other) rights to all its members.
That's an implementation issue.
In its purest form a government is set up by the people, to serve the people.
In its purest form, a corporation is set up by one or some people, to make money, usually paying people to be a part of it, and there ends the loyalty.
A government needs to be perverted to stop serving (all) its people. A corporation needs to be perverted to start serving its members, as the goal is simply profits and survival until further profits.
This isn't a moral distinction, it's the function of those concepts.
Without any restraints, one beast will always end up the strongest, and rule all other beasts. The only other possibility is for smaller creatures to cooperate to overcome it/keep it in check. This is what a society is.
If one governs your rights, you don’t have any.
Freedom isn’t government granting you rights, it’s government protecting you from coercion.
If government is the source of your rights, then government can take those rights away.
If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them.
Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power.
That's a fairly naive view. Corporations have lots of power, potentially unlimited power, without government. A limited government has a limited ability to protect the people and limit corporate power. We need a strong democratic government, because in the end people are what matters.
Corporations have no power over you. You can voluntarily do business with them, but they don’t have the power of coercion.
Please name one instance where a corporation had the power to forcibly coerce someone without the government’s backing.
To be clear, don’t cite voluntarily-entered contractual obligations.
to be clear... my comment was only when there isn't a government involved at all, which was the context of the conversation. Thanks!
They have as much power as they have resources to enforce, which is a lot more than you have, meaning they have a lot more - and in practice all - power.
> If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of protecting them.
A governing body is a collective agreement over what rights and freedoms its members deem fit. If you have none, as you said, you have the full burden of protecting them. Someone else (in the case of n-1 of all people) will always have more resources to protect (or impose on others) their freedoms/rights.
You either end up losing your rights/freedoms, or you establish a coalition with other nearby people, but you won't call it a government, because for some reason that word is bad.
Walmart is one of the largest corporations around and they have no power over me. I can voluntarily work or shop there, but they can’t force me to do it.
You've missed the point, there is no government to grant or revoke anything in this scenario.
Individual have rights and:
"So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do."
"Am I being detained?!"
"You can't mug me, I have a right not to be mugged!"
It's not a law of nature. The laws of nature are things like "the strongest take what they want" and "cannibalism not only feeds you, it removes competitors from the food chain!". Inalienable rights must be enforced in order to exist.