In his new book, "The Singularity is Near", Ray Kurzweil describes the history of technological innovation as an exponential function of time. Basically, the curve looks like this:

exponential curve

I submit that a similar function describes the growth of government at all levels. Just substitute "GOVERNMENT" for "TECHNOLOGY" on the Y-axis of the graph. What Kurzweil calls the "knee" region of the curve is the time span over which exponential growth becomes apparent to people just by looking around. It is when the growth rate of technology or government seems to "take off". We are living now in the "knee" region of government growth.

Aside from the anomaly of the Civil War (and it was really a fundamental shift), government growth was tame up until the time of Theodore Roosevelt. Then, a number of events began the rapid acceleration of government power: the Spanish-American War signalled a shift in American policy towards foreign interventionism. With Woodrow (make the world safe for democracy) Wilson, this shift was accelerated and the era of big government (especially expanded executive power) began. Closely allied to expansionism were the passage of the 16th Amendment (the income tax) and the creation of the Federal Reserve, which could be used to finance expansionism. The Great Depression of the 1930s, caused by government mismanagement of the country’s financial system, was followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s war with the Supreme Court. The Court was ruling against his socialist economic programs, but finally caved under Roosevelt’s threat to enlarge the Court and appoint justices favorable toward socialism. The following huge expansion of executive power and a World War left us with an out-of-control central government, dominated by a huge and powerful executive branch which began to intervene more and more into the lives of individuals. With no exceptions (though Reagan at least tried to make the right noises), the growth in power of the central government has accelerated up to the present.

Faced with the political dominance of the socialist program of the Democrats after FDR, Republicans, some of whom (e.g., Robert Taft) once talked about limited government, co-opted much of the Democrats’ program in order to win power. The effect of this co-option was that there was (and is) essentially one political party in the US, the Republicrats. Both wings of the party promote bigger, more intrusive government. Both promote foreign interventionism. Both promote using the central government to effect social change. The only difference between the Republican wing of the Republicrat Party and the Democrat wing is which constituencies get handouts and subsidies from the enormous tax and borrowed revenues of the central government.

We are now at the "knee" of the curve and we feel government expansion acutely. The central government has become the welfare-warfare state warned against by generations of libertarians. In today’s jargon, we see the results of the deadly convergence of the theocrat/neocon right and the nanny-state left. Together they reach out into every aspect of society and attempt to regulate just about everything – speech, property rights, sex, marriage and what you put into your body, to name but a few things. Local governments have copied the feds and intervene as much or more. Foreign interventionism has turned into outright military imperialism and is supported by both wings of the party, as is endless spending, taxation and accumulating debt.

So, the question is, as many others have said, can the growth of government be stopped or will it continue until the country explodes into violence or collapses economically? Optimists say that the idea of individual liberty is about to experience a new growth; this will halt and reverse government expansion. Pessimists say that socialism is now accepted and even desired by most people and will therefore cause government to continue to grow.

Optimists say that when a "critical mass" of people opposed to government expansion is reached, things will turn around. I think the idea of a "critical mass" is both demeaning to individuals (it "atomizes" them) and wrong. It sounds great. Just add a few more (interchangeable) people to the anti-government pot and, presto, big government will collapse. But governments have collapsed as the result of the actions of a small group of people – the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution, the American revolution. Yes, there had to be general discontent in order for the revolts to succeed, but the general discontent was not, by itself, a sufficient condition for radical change. The phrase, "critical mass", is as useless as the phrase, "tipping point", another related idea that atomizes events rather than individuals.

All this leaves me a pessimist. "So, why don’t you just shut up and stop writing this pointless blog?", I hear you ask. Two reasons. First, although I am pessimistic about radical change, there is always a chance that it might occur. Second, if a group of revolutionaries does arise, they will need general discontent to succeed. So I write to continue to roil the political waters and point out the problems in the present system in the hope that, if radical change occurs, it will be in the direction of individual liberty.

Not to mention that I’m a just a loquacious old guy.