We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It is a very rare Leftists who will tell you what the proper end point is for the expansion of government power and money. The answer is always "more."
The first problem with the essay is the loose use of the terms left-right, liberal-conservative. For instance, the claim that conservatives want a smaller government is contradicted by the existence of social conservatives, those who want government to regulate personal behaviors they consider anathema.
The other problem with the essay is overgeneralization. While it is certainly the case that governments can't grow without limit and still sustain economic growth, all modern economies are mixed systems, with strong government sectors, social safety nets, as well as robust markets. Only those on the hard left don't accept limits to government, or that some inequality is necessary for the proper functioning of markets. This would be like equating "the right" with those on the hard right.
“IF THERE IS A SINGLE STUMBLING BLOCK ON THE ROAD TO THE FUTURE, IT IS THE BUREAUCRACY AS WE KNOW IT. “By their very nature bureaucracies have no conscience, no memory and no mind. They are self-serving, amoral and live forever”. (credit to Edward Hall)
You need only to look at Olson's paradox; the rentiers and special interests continually pile on the government and they do so in tandem with bureaucrats (supported by media, academia, and pols) and who also seek to expand their turf and power. It is the nature of the beast. There is also, of course, always the underlying problem of racketeering.
“Bureaucracy on the life-destroying scale described by Edward T. Hall is an industrial era phenomenon. Only a bureaucracy can turn ordinary, decent people into participants in gigantic atrocities that go on and on, and absolve the people who operate the government machine from personal responsibility for the consequences.” (Noonan)
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Einstein.
Government doesn’t attract this kind of talent.
One thing I do notice about statists is that they are incapable of grasping the concept of diminishing returns, anecdotal, I know.
An old joke: “A USDA worker walks in the office and finds a co-worker crying at his deck. He asks what is wrong, why are you crying? The fellow answers " my farmer died." The joke is that there as many USDA workers as there are farmers and that he is afraid he will be fired.”
The real joke is that Ag works on behalf of the family farm, rather than BIG Agriculture and BIG Chemical.
I got this idea from the late Joseph Sobran, but found it to be true: if you want to have fun with "liberals" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators"), ask them: "Well, when are you going to stop? At what point, if any, do we all agree taxes are too high and the State too powerful?" You may not be able to hear their replies due to the sound of weasels drowning them out.