The times they are-a changin'

Ruminating on the influence of money in politics, 'Fox' writes:

Interests with large amounts of cash have disproportionate political clout. This is usually bad, but the answer is not to try to get the money out of politics; the answer is try to get politics out of our lives. Drastically reduce the scope and power of the federal government to dole out favors (in other words, legitimately apply the Constitution to the current establishment) and I guarantee that a lot less money will be wasted on rent-seeking. By the same argument, leave the current powers in place, and it won’t matter how many hurdles you throw in the way of lobbyists–they will leap over, scramble under, dodge around, or just plain break though every last one. When your life is on the line, people become remarkably resourceful.

"I’m a staunch defender of individual freedom, and I truly believe that a limited government dedicated to the protection and preservation of the rights to life, liberty, and property is both the only morally justifiable government and the one most likely to effectively promote peace and prosperity."

A limited government simply isn't possible in the 21st century.  And I don't mean on a practical level, I mean on a conceptual level.  If the U.S. were an agrarian or even early industrial society, you could make a legit case for a small and relatively uninvolved government.  But we're not.  The United States is a large, diverse and complex nation that exists in an even larger, more diverse and more complex world.  Individuals and civic associations aren't powerful enough to stand up to the force of market powers and market-based forces.  The services and functions the government provides aren't there for their own sake: they exist to provide some degree of protection from market forces and "fill-in" the areas where the market fails.  More importantly though, government exists to provide some degree of justice, to ensure that the outcomes of our economic system are - at the very least - fair.