| Heh, I love the use of "bull pucky". Anyways, its quite a long shot to claim the "big government theory doesn't hold water" because of the specific examples you pointed out. Moreover, I'd argue that most of your examples aren't devoid of the influences of big government as all these states are under the increasing central authority of D.C. To clarify, it seems it might be pertinent to explicitly point out that there are many factors involved with corruption: some chance, education, culture, geopolitics, etc. Size of government is what I'm arguing as an important factor. Your examples are NOT without influence of the factors mentioned. Actually, I find the capacity and likelihood of smaller governments being less susceptible to corruption as being quite intuitive as well. Though I'm not arguing by merit of intuition alone. Government theory is exclusively based on human understanding. My understanding of humans is that societies can feel abstracted away from large beuracratic governments. And indeed this is an observation as well. There are logistical issues with large governments as well. Its far more difficult to voice an opinion to large governments because they inevitably fall into the trap of bureaucracies. So when a handful of thousands of people petition online for something it often gets ignored and rejected by some clerk of a secretary working for some office for some congressmen/women. Lots of smaller issues go unchecked by the people. So, though its not an explicit part of the 3 branch government check system, I don't think we need to argue about the fact that the general public is an important, if not the most important check on the government. And if we recognize the fact that the general public has the most crucial responsibility the in the role of the government, then it shortly thereafter follows that it easier for smaller populations to agree, argue, deliberate, process, charge, incriminate, build most suitably. |