You cannot have “limited” government because you cannot limit an absolute.
Let me explain.
In its true essence, “government” is an abstraction. In other words, “government” has no inherent, autonomous, material (what I would call “actual”) value absent the objective and specific reference of the individual human being. But by the false Platonist logic so pervasive in the world today, government is considered a full-on autonomous and active entity/agent in and of itself, possessing a singular and distinct will and causality, and, most relevantly/dangerously, the inherent mandated FORCE to compel outcomes. And since “government” is absolute, this force is absolutely of government. Thus, and necessarily, it can only be used in service to government.
What the assumption of “government-as-material-and-sentient” does is effectively bring to “life” what is in reality an absolute abstraction. Now, I say “absolute” because outside of a material reference, abstractions are absolutely what they are. For example, “blue”, absent a reference to some material thing which is blue (like a blue hat, or a blue car) cannot be defined except as itself. Which is to say that”blue”, absent material, tangible reality, can only be defined as “blue”. In other words, blue is blue…is blue is blue is blue. It is what it is. “Blue” in a vacuum of itself is absolutely–is infinitely–blue. It is its own reference.
With respect then to the conceptual abstraction of “government”, once we give it the authority to compel outcomes, materially speaking–that is, effecting outcomes upon humanity and its material environment–we have conceded that what is absolute–what is infinite–has a not only the endemic power but also the endemic right to thrust its infinity of Self upon the world, subjugating everything else to itself, which it must do in order for it to maintain the integrity of its inviolable infinite nature. When the conceptual abstraction is somehow (never rationally…it takes a sophist argument) given its own autonomous “reality” and “existence” there is no room for anything or anyone else.
In truth, a conceptual abstraction such as–well, let’s stick with “blue”–is a function of objects…what we might describe as material and tangible artifacts, accessible to the senses. These objects are referenced to man…meaning they are given their own conceptual definitions. These are thus the non-abstract concepts. “Hat”, for example, is still a concept, but it is not abstract because it is a function of a specific (or specifically observed) material object; as opposed to “blue” which is not, itself, a function of any specific material object. It is a subcategory of the the abstraction of “color”. Just like the number “four” is a subcategory of the abstraction “integers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “numbers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “mathematics”.
These concepts are devised in the interest of promoting humanity’s comfort and existence, nothing more. Any attempt to make these concepts something else…any effort to ascribe to them innate, autonomous characteristics, a unique and separate metaphysic and power, is artifice, either wittingly or unwittingly. Do not doubt me. It is impossible to rationally ascribe to any concept some actualizing force or metaphysically unique existence. And all attempts to act from such notions must ultimately end in the destruction of humanity.
So, to reiterate: conceptual abstractions are referenced to material objects (which are given conceptual definitions, thereby making them non-abstract concepts) which are referenced to individual human beings. But in the Platonist world in which we live this equation is turned into its exact opposite, and humanity is referenced to objects (meaning that man becomes a direct function of the “objective” material universe “outside” of him–molecules, atoms, particles), and these objects are a direct function of conceptual abstractions.
These conceptual abstractions can be almost anything, but the most common ones are: the Laws of Physics (or Nature) which “govern” (and which, you will notice, are “discovered”, as opposed to devised by humans), the Church, the Race, the Common Good/your Brother’s Good (Keeper), God’s Will, and the daddy of them all, and that which all of them inexorably imply, the Government/State. And all of these “institutions” are ascribed one thing in common, and it is the only thing which really matters in the end: Total Authority
For example, when we speak of limiting government power, notice how it is assumed that it must done through the apparatus of government. This effectively makes any “decrease” in power really an increase… there is no difference. There is no such thing as something self-limiting itself; this is pure contradiction. The power of government to “self-limit” is in fact a direct function and therefore a direct extension of its power. Thus, as I have argued, when we institute a conceptual abstraction which is and can only be infinite in its essence and imbue it with causal power, it must and can only increase while the individual must and can only decrease. There is no decrease within the absolute of “government”. You see, because it is absolute it absolutely increases. While the individual–who cannot by definition be absolute if the concept to which he categorically ties his very existence is absolute–must therefore absolutely decrease.
In the presence of these all powerful magical, ethereal, transcendent causal abstractions which, it is assumed, must by their nature govern man (and this then absolutely), the Standard–the singularity; the non-relative constant–is no longer the human individual who perceives all life and reality and truth from his own singular, inexorable, indivisible, absolute and infinite frame of reference…from Self. Rather, the individual becomes a direct and determined function of a Standard of Truth and Morality outside of himself, to which he is utterly and existentially obligated to subordinate (sacrifice) himself. Because man is no longer a direct function of himself, he is considered a direct function of that new Standard…that abstraction which must fully govern him by its very nature, because man is an absolute extension of said Standard when the metaphysics are boiled down to their irreducible conclusion.
Okay, here we go.
This means that human consciousness and volition is an illusion. Any claim to an individual identity of Self must be recognized as a lie; and in order for the individual to access truth–which means reality–he must reject all claims to innate epistemological adequacy because of the absence of any individual metaphysic. Man can know nothing except the governing Rule…except that upon which his very survival, his very existence, his very Self, depends. In other words, the individual must have his reality interpreted for him by that which is said to govern him, because alone, he is unable to grasp it, his consciousness being illusory and merely a product of his own inherently depraved nature–that is, a nature which makes existence of himself and therefore to himself impossible. The only purpose of individual man’s life then is to sacrifice himself to whatever conceptual abstraction he decides he is dependent upon for his very survival, which, again, means his very existence. And how many people do you know will ever acknowledge the idea that man can survive without the power and rule of a Central Authority to govern him “for his own good”…that is, without a formal (read “conceptually abstract”) codification of rules by a formally (read again “conceptually abstract”) established, authoritative institution which must inevitably and ultimately compel man by force into “right” thinking and behavior?
I have proposed that man does not derive his morality from obeying laws, but rather by his own absolute, infinite ability to be himself. I have asserted this: that reason dictates that the only rational and thus true moral Standard is the individual human being, and thus only direct violations of individuals merit and demand justice; that man derives his morality and innate Truth by being himself, a premise which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that man must recognized the inherent right of ALL individuals to be themselves.
When I present my assertion to even some of the most enlightened thinkers I know I am met with the response: “How do you render justice for any violations of individuals without the codification of Law as a rubric?” With respect, this is merely a way of justifying the absolute authority of the State. What this means is that unless a specific group of individuals get together and come to a consensus on what constitutes morality, as a function of an abstract Standard (the “Law”), which is a function of their group, abstractly defined as the “State” or “Government” (in order to put distance between themselves and the inevitable destruction such a group must inflict upon all life and reality–to give themselves a moral get-out-of-jail free card), and then create the necessary army to enforce such a code by threat of violence upon another group of men, there can be no such thing as justice. Justice then becomes the abstraction to which all individuals (except for those who somehow get a metaphysical and epistemological pass on their own inherently inadequate human metaphysic) is obligated. Justice becomes merely then a euphemism for “government”.
And therefore what this means when all is said and done is that a certain man or group of men must, by some magical/divine/cosmic mandate, rule all other men. Completely.
There is no such thing as “limiting” this kind of power, because the power to govern is the power to claim that everyone else owes you the entirety of their lives because humanity can only be existentially manifest by being a direct function of that which enables its survival: the government.
The idea of limiting that which is the absolute reference, and therefore the absolute purpose and objective, of the entirety of human life is patently absurd on its face. To concede that man needs governing is to concede that man does not possess the metaphysical attributes necessary to live as an autonomous, self-actualizing, self-realizing, singular agent. This being the case, man, who thus needs governing to exist, absolutely, needs government, absolutely.
You cannot limit the power of a conceptual abstraction which is given material “reality” and “causality” by a humanity which has abdicated its natural right, moral obligation, and rational claim to exist of and to itself. You can however limit the the power of individuals (which is all government really is–a collection of individuals) over you, but this of course demands that you appropriate a metaphysic of the singular human Self as the Standard of all Morality and Truth. But getting people to even consider such a thing is an exercise in severe perseverance and frustration, never mind convincing them to accept it. Nevertheless, only when we accept such a metaphysic can we understand and aver the existential truth that no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately exist as a proxy for anyone else (which is precisely what the government does; it is its entire purpose). And no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately commandeer another individual’s property, their time, labor, or lives, nor compel their behavior by violence or threats of violence.
In short, because all people are autonomous in their person, having an absolute frame of reference for life–themselves–then all people are existentially equal. Which means that it is not rational, and is in fact immoral, to argue that it is necessary and inevitable that man must be governed–that some people must be ruled by other people, in any capacity whatsoever.