[psadauskas]

A weaker government would not be able to prevent corporations from doing whatever they want. A strong government makes for a richer target for corporations to lobby to allow them to do whatever they want.

It doesn't matter what size government we have, we need one that's just slightly larger than the corporations and is geared towards preventing the corporations becoming to powerful. We _need_ regulations and antitrust, but I don't know how we maintain that. An educated populace would help, but how to prevent the corporations from propagandizing that populace into weakening the government in the corporations interests? This is the situation we've been in the last 50 years.

[energy123]

The weak/strong distinction is quite bad. There's weak governments that are subject to cartels/gangs/militias like in Lebanon, or strong autocracies like Russia, and they are both terrible governments to live under.

I would instead optimize for properties that are not conceptually tied to 'weak' or 'strong'.

Have effective state capacity. Have independent corruption bodies. Enshrine the separation of powers and rule of law. Have a monopoly on force. Have an independent bureaucracy. Prioritize both efficiency and effectiveness without seeing them as trade-offs. Create more good regulations and repeal or reform more bad regulations. Separate military from civilian police.

Getting it right is about lots and lots of small details, quality institutions and cultural norms that we need to build over centuries of effort. It's less about a simple patch.

[tgma]

True. Plus strong/weak axis as in having teeth is a separate dimension than scope being large or small.