Arguments do not depend on their authors.
Nor is this statement necessarily true.
It also assumes a hell of a lot about the "Freedoms" of an individual.
Take flagburning, for example.
You might argue that a member of a tribal society is more free to burn a flag say a citizen of modern Italy. But flagburning as a concept has no relevance in tribal societies.
For a better example, take slavery, the privation of basic human freedom.
In a simple society, slavery's a pretty obvious thing. One person has no standing in society. A simple society can also guarantee that freedom pretty easily, by excluding those who keep slaves.
Now, look at our (US) society. Large corporations vie for an increasing share of citizens' productive capacity by on the one hand demanding "small government" -- when they mean dismantling agencies designed to limit their access to said capacity through such things as labor laws, privacy laws (how many "free loan-checks" have you gotten in the mail lately?) and antitrust laws, while on the other seeking to increase government regulation when it gives them a competitive edge. "Public Health" regulations, for example, are a great way for centralized chain groceries to chase out mom-and-pop butchers. Lifting restrictions on broadcast laws paves the way for Clear Channel to drive out of business all but a very small handful of local radio stations. "Environmental" laws can make billions for the oil companies if they're worded right. The examples go on and on.
So yeah, like the Republicans say, we need Big Government and we don't need it, but for the opposite reasons. We need government to guarantee our freedoms. We don't need it to sell them to the highest bidder.
So I argue that the more complex society is, the more potential freedom we can allow the individual, and the more we need government to guarantee that freedom. But not any government can do that. We need a good one.
That's why I'd like your help in installing a benevolent dictatorship.
