I think he means minimal in the sense of it not being, say, a surveillance state or being a large, bureaucratic behemoth that everyone relies upon to get things done.
I think he means minimal in the sense of it not being, say, a surveillance state or being a large, bureaucratic behemoth that everyone relies upon to get things done.
That too is reasonable. I believe all of those things are natural results of a state that determines its responsibilities are the economic stability and "safety net" of the people that vote for it.
How could a surveillance state not come from a state that also pays people for existing within certain parameters it must measure eligibility for?
I'd argue that ensuring economic stability is not minimal government, because it requires the government to step in. Whereas, the invisible hand of the free market (unadulterated by government policies and regulations) is what naturally ensures economic stability.
I think he means minimal in the sense of it not being, say, a surveillance state or being a large, bureaucratic behemoth that everyone relies upon to get things done.
That too is reasonable. I believe all of those things are natural results of a state that determines its responsibilities are the economic stability and "safety net" of the people that vote for it.
How could a surveillance state not come from a state that also pays people for existing within certain parameters it must measure eligibility for?
I'd argue that ensuring economic stability is not minimal government, because it requires the government to step in. Whereas, the invisible hand of the free market (unadulterated by government policies and regulations) is what naturally ensures economic stability.
I agree.