That's a puzzle I've yet to understand myself.

Yes, and our troubles continue and expand. I tried to write an answer but there is none. Until we resolve this, things will continue to get worse.

Because not all government is the same.

You know about big government and small government.

But there is also good government and bad government.

If government is bad, making it bigger or smaller won't fix anything.

If government is good, then making it smaller will likely ruin it because it won't be able to do it's job.

Conservatives assume that making government agencies understaffed and underfunded will somehow make them more efficient and less corrupt. They think that you can reduce crime by making the law unenforceable against rich people. I can't for the life of me figure out why they believe this, but you just can't talk them out of it.

Actually, I would say that it's wealth distribution ratios that, indeed, do take down a country.

Yes, there is the example that is Rome.

But there's also the example of the USSR. The maldistribution of wealth there was pouring too much into its military and for its political leaders.

The same thing happened to Czarist Russia prior to the formation of the USSR. Again, the maldistribution of wealth was focused into fighting World War I and into the aristocracy and other elites.

The Chinese Communist Party was formed out of the May 4th Movement. The May 4th Movement was a reaction to the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I. What happened was China had sent a labor force to help the Allies to free up British and French troops so they could be used for fighting instead. The understanding was that China would do this and, in exchange, they receive the province of Shandong. Shandong was controlled by Germany before the war, captured by Japan afterwards, and China wanted it back. But the treaty totally ignored the will of China and ceded the province to Japanese control. With previous exploitation of China by Western powers building up pressure, this was too much for the Chinese people and forced them to resist the West. The maldistribution here was the exploitation of the Chinese people to foreign banks who loaned them money for infrastructure projects and the like borrowed by an ineffectual administration that could only pay off the minimum and kept China in debt to them.

The French Revolution occurred because of maldistribution of wealth. The French king had bankrupted the country by borrowing funds to give to the colonies during the American Revolution. This increased the debt the French king had accrued to pay for earlier wars with Britain. This, along with consecutive poor grain harvests, incensed the French people to revolt against the royalty and aristocracy and institute a republic.

Now, granted, governments fall for very many reasons. But I think that a growing wealth gap is an indicator of a vulnerable government.

No offense intended, but two things that Sweden also has going for it, compared to the U.S. at least, is that Sweden has a much smaller population and they don't have the global obligations, such as for military projection and foreign aid, that the U.S. has.

Good point.

We've got bases all over the world we really don't need anymore. The face of war has changed over time from big lumbering tank-type warfare to smaller tactical forces. But a funny thing happens when we threaten to close some of these bases.

Take Germany for example. For decades the German people have railed against having US bases in their country, but there's a dirty little secret. As soon as we threaten to close them down they scream bloody murder. Because if we didn't have bases located in Germany they would have to spend more on military to make up the difference. And doing so would cut into their annual budget, depriving them of precious marks dedicated to their beloved social programs.

So there's always a rub, a tradeoff or a Catch 22 in government decisions that have a long term impact in our country and abroad.

Couple that with the fact that government programs never die. No matter how wasteful or how outdated they live on forever. Even government regulations never die. A snippet of IRS tax code created in 1972 might have seemed like a good idea at the time. But then a conflicting snippet is added in 1980 and others in 1984, 1992, 1996 . . .

Pretty soon no one really knows which snippet takes precedence over the others. The sad part of this is that no one ever checks the rules existing on the books already when they whip up new ones that sound good today. They just pile on top of each other like cord wood.

At the end of the day all governments are full of waste, fraud, abuse, conflicting regulations, Catch 22's and a morass of red tape. They have to be, it's in their DNA. There is no other option.

The government that is best is one that governs least.