>>83056733Because they're the populous states, and democracy tends to favor liberal policies over those of the men who would be aristocracies running small populations as their personal lackies.
When you correct for population head, the lion's share in fact happens in the shitty flyovers and Texas, where money rules.
Texas is in the middle of turning blue, though, so that might come down a ways over the next few decades.
No, what you're doing there is imagining that a small government can effectively govern a large body of people, and it can't. A small government can however give kickbacks to large private corporations to govern a large number of people however they deem to be cost-effective in order to achieve political aims at arm's length - preserving the myth of small government's viability over the "inefficiency" of large-scale bureaucracies, which is really more to do with the general human inability to perceive scale in abstract than anything in reality.
Of course, history has shown that if you empower these private agencies by simply putting your flag on them, you get the blame anyway; as did the various European powers whose East India companies built their empires (and lost them, and were frequently bankrupted and had to be bailed out at a scale that makes Fannie Mae look like pocket change). So it's a lot easier to use your own troops for the pointy end, use private contractors and the myth of localism to divide any effective populist uprising within your own territories, and use the threat of capital flight to prevent any serious political challenge to the system itself. After all, nobody wants these companies we rely on to leave, right? Then we'd have to pay somebody else to do all the shit they do.
