When a government is bigger, it has the power to give you more things, such as welfare and assistance. Since they have to power to give you these things, they also have the power to take away these things. As opposed to what most people think, big governments are actually more restrictive. Big governments can get more power and control. This leads to more corruption, since the state ends up owning a lot.
The less the Federal government is involved the better. The United States is huge. It is a giant melting pot of people from different backgrounds and cultures. I would vouch for a smaller federal government, but larger local government. On the local scale, people will likely know who they are voting for and are not tied up in special interests. They care about the community and their residents. Town hall meetings are a great way to meet members of your community and talk about issues facing the area that directly impact you. Here in New Hampshire, nearly everyone attends local town hall meetings, and know who they vote into office. They may even be your neighbor. And generally people are more happy with that approach. I don't really think Federal Government employees really care about you as an individual like local candidates do. They should have more say in the government that rules because they understand the pressing issues that the local people are facing.
The federal government has seen a dramatic growth in responsibility over the past seven years of the Obama Administration, which has resulted in many scandals. The problem with large government is not an imbalance of power, but rather, as the past seven years have suggested, the federal government getting into things they should not be responsible for and getting in over their heads. Things like environmental protection and societal issues (Mike Brown case, feminism, et cetera) should be left to state either state governments or private organizations. Although this does require a new source of money, as they could not be funded by the federal government, situations like these can not be a federal issue. This would give the federal government more time -- and money -- to focus on things like foreign affairs, trade and military.
We live in the time of big, globalized government. However is this the best option available?
The fact is that it has been proven time and time again that as soon as a government starts growing the economy and the people suffer.
The best possible example of this is the USA, the US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, it forbids the government from giving itself more power and ensures a free market, however since WW1 and 2 that has drastically changed. Today the government tries to fully control the lives of as many of it's citizens as possible, it takes upon itself the role of world rulers and ignore the will and common good of it's citizens. Should there be a change????
The whole idea of small government is nothing more than ideological shackles that prevent the government from otherwise doing things that benefit the nation. I couldn't care less whether the government is big or small. I care if they're doing good things.
I'll give the example of environmental protection. One objection I've read to environmental protection policies is that government intervention in the market increases the power of the government. Yeah, it does... And how is that bad? Per-unit taxation can solve the problem of negative externalities and reduce deadweight loss, and same with quotas. Subsidies can increase supply, eliminate deadweight loss and create a socially optimal market that is not possible under laissez-faire conditions.
I'll give another example, censorship. For whatever reason, it has taken on a negative connotation, but that is associative meaning, not conceptual meaning. Censorship simply means disallowing certain types of speech, and when that type of speech is harmful, I see no reason why we should not censor it. Neo-nazism, for example, is extremely harmful to society, and censoring this ideology will be beneficial to society - what justification is there, then, in not censoring them, other than attaining consistency with 'small government' and 'liberty'?
I'm not saying a small government is *bad*, since it *can* be good. I would not support a dictator censoring dissent because dissent can help improve government policies through constructive criticism, and eventually benefit society. What I‘m saying is that we don't need small government for its own sake, and let the government make good policies for us unfettered.
In my opinion, a good government is one that treats its people fair. Small government does not guarantee that the people will happy, or that their needs will be satisfied. While it is very much possible for a small government to be a good one, there is no guarantee that this will happen. In addition small government has a harder time in checking or controlling the society. For people that claim that small government is a good thing in that it frees the economy and ensures freedom for the citizens, remember that small government has a harder time in enforcing regulations.
In other words, a small government has weaker hold on society. This may lead to power flowing into the hands of those who can hold it. Gangs will most likely benefit from this, as weaker government control will allow a power gap for them to fill in. While there is no guarantee that this will happen, small government allows a chance for this to happen.