Quote:
Originally Posted by Army5339
I think there is an upper population limit for any sort of democratic style government. That also goes for Republics. At a certain point, representation gets so watered down that it can no longer be considered representation in any meaningful definition. If it did, there would be so many representatives that any sort of governing body would have many thousands of participants, thus negating any usefulness.
Any large government needs to be more authoritarian as it grows in population.
I think that this is going to be one of the more serious domestic political struggles for the US as our population booms: how to keep representation at a truly representative scale. Could we have a House with 2000 members? Would it be effective?
|
Hence our founding fathers went with a federal system. The true representation and most of the power that affect our daily lives rest with the states. Then the states get together to talk about more important things that are not directly related to our daily lives, like war, trade with foreign nations, and negotiate state relations.
Our government had gone astray when the first power to levy income tax was granted by a constitution amendment. Government got its hands on a lot of money and saw a reason, a need, to grow, in order to justify such a seizure of private properties.
"The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy." -- unknown
Tt all starts with money. And people think corporations are greedy...
