Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!genrad!panda!teddy!lkk
From: lkk@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Experimentation and Danger
Message-ID: <1772@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 13:39:30 EST
Article-I.D.: teddy.1772
Posted: Fri Dec  6 13:39:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 21:50:53 EST
References: <344@pedsgd.UUCP> <28200281@inmet.UUCP> <817@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 34

In article <817@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>If small governments are so much better, why are the best governments in
>the world all of relatively large countries?  (Of course, the worst
>governments in the world are also all of relatively large countries.
>But that doesn't answer the question.)


What???  I don't see any evidence for this.

Sweden is a small country (pop. 8 million) yet it has one of the
finer governments in the world.  SO do Denmark, Holland, Costa Rica.  

Large governments include: soviet union, china, and India, none of which
would make my top ten list.



Small governments have the advantage that they generally don't 
have as many competing constituencies (cf. USA),  generally representing a 
relatively homogeneous population, with common goals.

Small governments can also be more responsive to their constituents, being
"closer" to the action.
----
BTW, Chile had about 50 years of continuous democratic experience before
Nixon and Kissinger engineered its downfall.

-- 
Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
--------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Helen Keller