Okay, I'd agree with that absolutely. The actions of government would ideally be much more limited than they currently are.
You initially said (according to my inference) that the freedom to not pay taxes was more crucial than access to clean water. Which is the core and origin of the discussion, you entering the discussion with the assertion that it would be fundamentally wrong for any level of access to healthcare (which I would include clean water as a part) to be provided through involuntary taxation.
You seem to have moved away from these goalposts, conceding that a limited government in some form can exist. If you're going to argue by using historical example from existing civilisations, we're both going to agree that the government should be smaller and more liberal than currently, but you're not going to find a single example demonstrating that the provision of clean water through taxation has been an impediment to the flourishing of civilisation.
I didn't state that freedom to pay tax is more important than access to essential services. I simply said the that taxation, philosophically, is a form of coercion - and I think we need to establish this fact and decide on the degree to which we are willing to coerce to produce specific outcomes (which don't actually happen through govt most of the time). Pragmatically, there is a NEED for government, a very small need nonetheless.
Besides that though, this current society is NOT liberalism in practice. Bank bailouts, 30% + govt spending as a % of GDP, a welfare state - that is not capitalism, that is not what liberalism and what the free market looks like. The reason the West has prospered and took dominance over the past 200 years is because of the free market. Similarly, the reason the west is now in a state of economic decline (Severe economic decline mind you; the GFC was a taste of what some economists forecast is to come) is because we've moved AWAY from liberalism.
If you don't create wealth you can't redistribute it. Sure, socialism seems okay on first glance, but what happens when you run out of other people's money? The data is there wide and clear; the problems and challenges we face as a society (in the west in general as well Australia) stem from growing government.
I'm not sure if you're joking, Einstein was famously literally a bureaucrat working for the government when he formulated relativity, it's probably the single most well known fact about Einstein (other than e=mc2).
You sure? I've read otherwise. Either way, efficient outcomes will not come from Bureaucracy in the more general, non-genius case. Einstein summarized it pretty well himself;
“Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work.”
And when we talk about bureaucracy producing good outcomes, we also need to ask what outcomes WEREN'T produced as a direct result. For instance, if we allocate X amount of resources to a public firm to produce a certain good of highest quality possible, those same resources COULD have (and logically, would have) been of better use in the free market. Capital used in the public sector is capital lost in the private sector, capital which would have produced better and more resource efficient outcomes.
How do you guarantee the provision of something if it isn't through collective enforcement? Justice, fairness, and order, are all entirely dependent on the guarantee of reliability and consistency. I already said theft is fine and justifiable, if it's organised, predictable, accountable, and ostensibly utilitarian.
Without some form of enforced authoritarian collectivism, service provision is a lot less predictable for many people, if they have to depend on private charity. If it's unpredictable, it's never fair, just, or orderly. I believe humans have a preference for a lower quality predictable service, than a higher quality unpredictable service. The role of government is to provide this predictability. Which you concede when you say there should be a baseline small government.
Small government and voluntary charity isn't inconsistent or unreliable. And I guess you ultimately have to define justice, order and fairness for yourself.
Morally, what goodness is there in force? What human emotion or compassion is truly present in a system of force? Like I said, SMALL government is necessary - but when we embrace statistm and destroy personal responsibility, I don't think justice, order or fairness are found in the process.
And besides, you're missing the point.
The free market reduces poverty and creates prosperity in utilitarian terms to a larger degree than statism has or ever will. You can believe otherwise, if you do though, you pay no attention to history or economics.
I agree bureaucracy grows exponentially, but not necessarily in a way that always restricts freedom. Civil liberties aren't always revoked, in many cases they have become more liberal over the 20th century. For instance, since 1990, NZ, the UK, and EU, have all enacted extensive bills of rights. Hardly the road to serfdom.
So now, with laws that strangle the labor market, restrict free speech, impinge on parental autonomy, there has been no revocation of civil liberty? I think you need to redefine your definition of freedom. Something that restricts me from doing something is fundamentally the antithesis of freedom.
I need approval from the damned council to build a shed in my backyard.
Keep in mind, the rule of law is set to restrict me from impinging on another individuals freedom, not to create positive freedoms.
The road to serfdom is long and ugly. Quite frankly, there are some laws today which are pretty scary (I.e. Discrimination Act) as they infringe on the fabric of human prosperity and expression. We were built off of freedom, and we won't continue to progress without it.
