pretty much everyone i’ve talked to seems to agree that when you have small groups of people, you tend to get good outcomes. yet larger states have political power to bend the world to their will. assume a state with good intentions because it is small enough to not be corrupt (i know, suspend your disbelief) perhaps there is an optimal state size where people get fair representation and their economy functions well, the state looks out for the people and the state is not so small that it is trampled/absorbed by its neighbors.
we need a state that actually cares for the people, i’d say. whether you call that socialism or something else is up to you.
pretty much everyone i’ve talked to seems to agree that when you have small groups of people, you tend to get good outcomes. yet larger states have political power to bend the world to their will. assume a state with good intentions because it is small enough to not be corrupt (i know, suspend your disbelief) perhaps there is an optimal state size where people get fair representation and their economy functions well, the state looks out for the people and the state is not so small that it is trampled/absorbed by its neighbors.
Dude, it’s about regulatory capture.
Your problem isn’t that your state is “too big”, it’s that it’s not able to resist pressure from moneyed interests.