Right, unfortunately the trend has been increasing power of the state for some time.
But I think the point also argues against having an extremely powerful administrative / regulatory state.
For instance, suppose you want to create a department to "fight misinformation" and it will have wide ranging power to push for censorship. But depending who is running it, it might censor vastly different kinds of speech.
If you believe such an entity should exist you should be indifferent to the kind of person running it. As an example, consider garbage removal. I'm relatively happy with my city's garbage removal. I wouldn't really be concerned if it was run by Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Maybe there would be some graft in one way or another, but it's pretty obvious what the organizations' goals are.
So I think that there's a difference between "government takeover to shrink the size of the state" is different from "government takeover to add another layer of unelected bureaucracy to run our lives"
> So I think that there's a difference between "government takeover to shrink the size of the state" is different from "government takeover to add another layer of unelected bureaucracy to run our lives"
Maybe in the short term, but in the long term they are no different because the power separation is eroded in either case. If you want to reduce the size of the state you need to get congress on board with your plans.
Why do I need to get congress? Congress isn't some magical body that is somehow more responsive or well run than the executive. They have more special interests. Why would I want a delegate from some state have a say that the government should have less of a reach into my life? That just means id have to essentially bribe this person with some special carve out for his state which is how we got into this whole mess. Lot simpler to just have more or less a national referendum for delete power
But I think the point also argues against having an extremely powerful administrative / regulatory state.
For instance, suppose you want to create a department to "fight misinformation" and it will have wide ranging power to push for censorship. But depending who is running it, it might censor vastly different kinds of speech.
If you believe such an entity should exist you should be indifferent to the kind of person running it. As an example, consider garbage removal. I'm relatively happy with my city's garbage removal. I wouldn't really be concerned if it was run by Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Maybe there would be some graft in one way or another, but it's pretty obvious what the organizations' goals are.
So I think that there's a difference between "government takeover to shrink the size of the state" is different from "government takeover to add another layer of unelected bureaucracy to run our lives"