It is, quite simply, a question of numbers.
There are more people now. QED.
Oh: you want more?
More people means more resources required to satisfy the problems that the increased population creates.
Each person in government represents a certain number of people. A reduction in the number of people in the government means that each one of those people represents more people. ‘Smaller government’ equates to a reduction in effective democracy. And from what I’ve seen, that’s what’s been happening.
Our courts, for example, have been struggling for years under increasing levels of cutbacks brought about, originally, by the so-called ‘credit crunch’ of 2007/2008 and the ensuing period of ‘austerity’ (during which, oddly, the wealthiest got wealthier still: can someone please explain to me why we put up with that?). This led inexorably to a reduction in the number of criminal cases being conducted. This has meant that a great many more perpetrators are not taken to task for the crimes they commit: instead, they go free; many of them on legal technicalities. Which has resulted in an increase in crime; the perps, quite naturally, have taken advantage of the societal governance vacuum.
Who are these people who lead the call for ‘smaller government’? Are they, perhaps, criminals themselves? My limited understanding leads me to believe that this must be so, because common sense dictates that we need more resources applied to the problems that we face: we need more representation, not less, in the organisations that purport to protect us.
Simply put: we need more folks positioned to protect society from the evils within it.
And that’s not what we’re getting.