“Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.” ― Edward Abbey
This was one of those realizations I had while reading the anti-federalist papers, and their critiques of the federalists. It always struck how poignant their critiques were, and how many of those critiques have come true today.
But for all the Anti-Federalists skepticism at a strong federal government, what makes a smaller, more fractured set of confederate states any less tyrannical? Simply the size? The number? Is cancer not cancer if it is small enough? Or do we try to cut it out, no matter its size? This realization leads to the conclusion that history has been leading is towards these 5-6 or so thousand years of human governments - there is no "small" government. It necessarily grows in size. Always. Even the American one. It started as a confederacy of independent states, but statists and tyrants in wait *coughHamiltoncough* recognized all too quickly that they did not have the power and authority they thought they would have. The solution? Create a bigger, more powerful and overreaching state. And that was at the very beginning! What shot do modern conservatives, libertarians, and/or minarchists have? None at all.
There is only one solution. Anarchy. It is what the nature of man, and the history of man, have been leading us towards. If the government that governs best governs least, it follows that the best government is self-government. Individuals controlling and protecting their own lives. Not some state. It can't do it. It was never intended to be good to you, or small and unobtrusive. And especially with the kind of power hungry individuals looking to take the reigns of it today?
Embrace reason. Embrace reality. Embrace history.