One reason conservatives and libertarians are wary of any expansion of Government in size or scope is that they fear that this growth cannot be controlled. While it can be argued that government involvement in expanding access to health care or higher education might be in some ways quite positive, the believer in small government often fears the unintended consequences of such intervention. I think there certainly is some truth in the idea that the more the government takes on, the more prestige and practical power it gains. When a government provides you with many services, the social contract does change -- you do effectively "owe" your government much more. Take the example of a very sick person in a state with government-provided health care: it's quite likely that this person will not pay the equivalent in taxes what he or she receives in medical services. The more people that "get more than they put in", the stronger the moral position the government has to demand more from its citizens. It's probably no coincidence that so-called "nanny states" like Germany and Norway still continue the practice of peacetime conscription which has been abolished in most of the developed world due to popular opinion and for the sake of efficiency. Still, other nanny states certainly have left conscription by the wayside. While John F. Kennedy urged people to think about what they could do for their government (OK, he said "country"...), in a democracy citizens still have the upper hand in determining just how much they owe their government.

Democracy clearly can have a moderating effect on Big Government's ability to bully. Unfortunately, sometimes democracy is an empowering force for bullies in the majority to force their will on and restrict the freedom of the minority -- even when that does happen, though, there is at least hope that such bullying can be reversed by a more enlightened voting population in the future. The situation of big government without democracy tends to be worse for freedom as it is harder for the people to affect policy. Take Cuba as an example. It is neither the most murderous nor the most repressive regime in the world, but it exerts a great deal of control over its population and the Castros have traditionally taken a particularly hard line against political dissent in their 50+ years in power. Nonetheless, Cuba has its fair share of admirers who point to its universal health care (indeed, one of its leading exports is its doctors: Venezuela's health care system for one would struggle to function without them) and educational systems (Cuba's literacy rate is 99.8%!) as examples to the world. Indeed, online one can barely say a bad word against Cuba without a defender or five cropping up and essentially arguing that the lack of basic freedoms doesn't matter so long as you have government-provided basic services. Cuba's official motto could be, "You've got health care...now shut up!" as that is what the Cuban government seems to expect of its citizens. Raul Castro has even blamed the recent death of a Cuban dissident on the United States -- this argument seems to suggest that no one in Cuba could possibly disapprove of the government and thus any and all dissidents must be agents of the United States. This is a ridiculous stance...any student of history or of politics could tell you that even the world's most perfect possible government would still inspire dissent. It's simply a part of human nature. Still, I smile as I imagine stunned Cuban officials' reactions to the discovery of the existence of an authentic Cuban dissenter: "But....he had HEALTH CARE! How could he possibly dissent?!" At least in Cuba the government does do something besides bullying -- others get all the repression but none of the services.

Frankly, at the end of the day I'm not sure a free country really exists in this big world of ours. What we tend to see even in the best countries to live in is a great deal of freedom in certain areas of life but much less freedom in other areas...no country I've studied quite reaches the point of being reasonably free (as in "it has no unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom") according to my point of view. The United Kingdom, to give an example, is far freer than the United States for the gambler and the sports better. Irrational laws still make innocent pastimes like playing poker online or betting on the outcome of a basketball game technically illegal for most Americans though such laws, like all irrational laws, tend to be ignored rather freely. Although the USA is often not placed in the nanny state category (unfortunately, I think it probably belongs there), it is in fact the epitome of nanny state thinking to seek to prevent people from using their own money as they see fit. Anti-gambling laws are all about protecting people from themselves...though admittedly corporate interests have certainly also played a very strong role in determining the legal status of sports betting. The UK is blessed with a more sensible legal view of online gambling and sports betting so it is the freer country in this respect. On the other hand, the UK's libel laws have frequently been accused of having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and of the press because it is so easy to bring such cases to trial and win (a decent overview of the situation there can be viewed here). Even science journalists with a nose for cold, hard facts have suffered as a result of the UK's libel regime. The USA is the freer nation if you want to speak and print your mind because its legal framework is better equipped to protect speech. All things considered, I do prefer to live in the United States rather than the United Kingdom, but I think I'd only be kidding myself if I tried to make the argument that Americans are significantly freer than the British. Freer in certain ways, yes, but the Brits can say the very same thing. In truth, our very differences showcase our fundamental similarities.

If a small government, fair laws, and robust business and nonprofit sectors represent the best path to freedom and a high quality of life, a big representative government that is nonetheless limited in order to protect individual liberties seems like a reasonable compromise with reality. It's perfectly possible, for instance, to legally place the responsibility of providing specific services (not necessarily monopolizing them) like health care and education on the state but just as explicitly protect freedom of speech. In practice, it unfortunately seems far easier for government to expand than to limit itself -- politicians loathe ceding any of their power to legislate. Perhaps that tendency will require more explicit constitutions that protect more freedoms (and leave no wiggle room for politicians or a momentarily oppressive majority to exploit) in the future.