People who complain about oligarchy should support limited government

 People who criticize the oligarchy—where a small elite holds disproportionate wealth and influence—often see government as either complicit in or captured by this power. Supporting limited government size and power can align with their concerns for several reasons:

1. Reduces Cronyism Opportunities: A smaller government with less regulatory power has fewer levers for oligarchs to manipulate through lobbying or bribes, curbing their ability to secure favorable policies, subsidies, or bailouts.
2. Limits State-Enforced Monopolies: Large governments can grant special privileges (e.g., patents, licenses, or contracts) that entrench corporate giants. A leaner government reduces these barriers, fostering competition and weakening entrenched elites.
3. Decreases Bureaucratic Capture: Powerful bureaucracies are often infiltrated by elite interests who shape policy behind closed doors. A limited government with fewer agencies is harder for oligarchs to control or co-opt.
4. Empowers Individuals Over Elites: Concentrated government power can be weaponized to protect oligarchic interests (e.g., through surveillance or tax loopholes). Reducing state authority shifts power toward individuals and communities, making it harder for elites to dominate.
5. Prevents Wealth Redistribution Upward: Big government programs, like corporate welfare or complex tax codes, often funnel public resources to the wealthy. A simpler, smaller government minimizes these mechanisms, keeping resources with the broader population.
6. Encourages Decentralized Power: A government with limited scope allows local communities and markets to make decisions, diluting the centralized influence of oligarchs who thrive in top-down systems.

By shrinking the size and reach of government, the mechanisms that oligarchs exploit—lobbying, regulatory capture, and insider deals—lose their potency, creating a system where power is harder to hoard.

In addition:

Expanding on why those who criticize oligarchy—where a small elite wields outsized economic and political control—should support limited government size and power, here are deeper reasons, grounded in how concentrated state power often fuels elite dominance. These points build on the earlier ideas, diving into mechanisms, historical patterns, and practical implications.

1. Disrupts the Revolving Door Between Government and Corporations
   Large governments with extensive regulatory frameworks create a revolving door where corporate executives become regulators and vice versa. This incestuous relationship ensures policies favor oligarchs over the public. For example, in the U.S., leaders from major banks often cycle into roles at the Treasury or Federal Reserve, shaping rules to benefit their former (or future) employers. A smaller government with fewer regulatory bodies reduces these opportunities for elites to embed themselves in the system, breaking the cycle of mutual enrichment.
2. Undermines Legalized Corruption Through Complexity
   Oligarchs thrive in environments with bloated, opaque legal and regulatory systems. Complex tax codes, for instance, allow the ultra-wealthy to exploit loopholes (e.g., carried interest deductions or offshore havens) that ordinary people can’t access. Similarly, sprawling regulations often burden small businesses while granting exemptions to large corporations with legal teams. A streamlined government with simpler laws and minimal regulations levels the playing field, making it harder for elites to game the system while empowering smaller players to compete.
3. Prevents Government as a Tool for Elite Insulation
   A powerful state can shield oligarchs from accountability. Consider bailouts during financial crises (e.g., 2008), where government funds saved failing banks while homeowners faced foreclosure. Or look at how eminent domain has been used to seize private property for corporate projects. A government with limited fiscal and legal authority lacks the resources or jurisdiction to act as a safety net for the elite, forcing them to face market consequences and public scrutiny.
4. Weakens the Surveillance State That Protects Elite Interests
   Oligarchs often rely on government surveillance to maintain control, whether by monitoring dissent or protecting their assets. Large governments with unchecked powers (e.g., NSA’s PRISM program) can collect data that elites use to suppress competition or manipulate markets. A limited government, stripped of expansive surveillance capabilities, reduces this threat, giving individuals and smaller entities more freedom to challenge elite dominance without fear of retaliation.
5. Reduces the Scope for Public-Private Partnerships That Enrich Elites
   So-called public-private partnerships often funnel taxpayer money to oligarchic interests under the guise of public benefit. Infrastructure deals, for instance, may award lucrative contracts to connected firms while socializing losses. A smaller government with less budget and authority for such projects starves these schemes, forcing elites to compete in open markets rather than relying on state-backed handouts.
6. Encourages Economic Mobility Over Stagnation
   Oligarchies entrench wealth by stifling social and economic mobility. Big governments contribute by creating barriers—licensing requirements, subsidies for established industries, or education systems that favor the connected—that lock out newcomers. A limited government prioritizes free markets and minimal intervention, which reward innovation and effort over inherited privilege. Historical data backs this: countries with lower government spending as a percentage of GDP (e.g., Switzerland, Singapore) often have higher social mobility than those with larger bureaucracies.
7. Diminishes the Power of Centralized Monetary Policy
   Central banks, often extensions of government power, can disproportionately benefit oligarchs through policies like quantitative easing, which inflates asset prices (stocks, real estate) owned by the wealthy. A constrained government with less influence over monetary policy—or one that decentralizes currency through market-driven alternatives—reduces this wealth-concentrating mechanism, aligning with anti-oligarchy goals.
8. Fosters Grassroots Accountability
   When government is smaller and less intrusive, power shifts to local communities, voluntary associations, and individual initiative. This decentralization makes it harder for distant elites to impose their will. For example, local governments are more responsive to citizens than federal bureaucracies, which are often insulated and beholden to corporate interests. By limiting top-down control, anti-oligarchy advocates gain more direct influence over decisions that affect them.
9. Historical Precedent: Big Government Enables Oligarchy
   History shows that expansive states often partner with elites to consolidate power. In mercantilist Europe, monarchs granted monopolies to favored merchants. In modern times, fascist and socialist regimes alike have co-opted industry leaders to entrench control. Limiting government power disrupts this pattern, as it reduces the state’s ability to pick winners and losers, a practice that invariably favors the already powerful.
10. Aligns With Anti-Oligarchy Ideals of Fairness
    Those who rail against oligarchy often champion fairness and equal opportunity. A limited government, by minimizing interference in markets and personal lives, creates a system where success depends more on merit than connections. For instance, reducing subsidies for industries like fossil fuels or big tech would force companies to innovate rather than rely on government favors, aligning with the anti-elite ethos of breaking up unearned privilege.

Practical Considerations

Supporting limited government doesn’t mean advocating for anarchy or abandoning protections for the vulnerable. It means designing a state that’s efficient, transparent, and focused on essential functions (e.g., enforcing contracts, preventing fraud) without becoming a tool for elite enrichment. Critics of oligarchy might worry that reducing government leaves the poor defenseless, but evidence suggests otherwise: countries with smaller governments (e.g., Denmark, with low regulatory burdens but strong property rights) often have robust safety nets and less wealth inequality than heavily interventionist states.

Counterpoint to Address

Some anti-oligarchy advocates argue that only a strong government can check corporate power through antitrust laws or wealth taxes. However, history shows that such powers are often captured by the very elites they’re meant to regulate—antitrust suits target competitors, not cronies, and tax policies end up riddled with exemptions. A limited government avoids this trap by reducing the state’s role as a referee that can be bribed, focusing instead on clear, universal rules that apply equally to all.

By shrinking the size and scope of government, the infrastructure that oligarchs rely on—complex regulations, corporate welfare, and bureaucratic collusion—crumbles. This creates a system where power is diffuse, competition is fairer, and elites can’t hide behind state machinery, directly addressing the grievances of those who decry oligarchic dominance.