Why ‘neutral’ policies fuel the ever-growing power of the state

Many conservatives and libertarians say reducing the size of government is their top priority but rarely consider the factors that drive its growth in the first place. For most small-government champions, institutional neutrality and minimal state power are measures of success. Yet, they often overlook how these factors can make expansion of the state inevitable.

While libertarians hold varying views, many believe borders are an artificial state imposition and that individuals should move freely at will. This belief that government should not favor any particular culture or people leads to multiculturalism. Ironically, it also creates a need for a large state apparatus to mediate conflicts among diverse cultures.

In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions.

When America’s founders broke from Great Britain, they did not seek to abolish all governance or grant unfettered individual freedom. They acknowledged the necessity of government but believed it could remain limited if people shared moral principles and maintained personal virtue.

Early America included state churches, blasphemy laws, and strict standards for public conduct. Liberty, in their view, was not the absence of authority but governance aligned with the shared values and beliefs of the people.

The men who established the U.S. government recognized that it would only work for a moral and religious people, and they made that fact explicit. They believed that when people act virtuously and pursue the common good without state coercion, government can effectively govern less.

Every person who seeks the good does so by following what feels natural within their own culture and religion. Laws and restrictions that align with these beliefs do not feel burdensome — often, shared communal expectations alone can maintain order. In this sense, liberty and a shared moral vision are inseparable.

When the social forces of religion and culture remain strong, the state can uphold order with minimal interference. Robust families and communities with a common moral foundation mediate conflict and discourage antisocial behavior before it demands government involvement. But when these social forces weaken or fracture, the state must intervene to prevent disorder.

This dynamic explains why a government that does not favor a particular culture or its virtues will inevitably grow in both size and power.

By its nature, multiculturalism fractures a shared moral vision. Culture shapes us from birth, helping us understand the world and our place in it. Culture and religion define right and wrong, establish the social customs we consider natural, and inform our sense of the good life for both individuals and communities. While different cultures may overlap in some areas, this minimal shared morality is often not enough to foster harmony, because a multicultural society, by definition, embodies multiple competing visions of the good and how to pursue it.

When people shared a strong majority culture and moral vision, government could stay small. The state needed only to make laws consistent with that culture, so those laws did not feel like an imposition. Critics may label a government that favors and protects the majority culture as “illiberal,” yet it may be more likely to let citizens live according to their conscience. However, when a nation becomes multicultural and the state chooses to support that shift, the state must radically change its role.

In a multicultural society, organic dispute-resolution methods and communal expectations cannot reliably maintain order. Individuals hold differing views on public conduct, the values taught in public institutions, and which notion of the good should guide collective action. These disagreements are fundamental because they stem from the core assumptions of each competing culture. Without a common tradition, no organic communal structure exists to mediate such conflicts, so the state must step in.

In a multicultural country, the government must serve as a neutral arbiter among communities with different moral visions. Yet, no institution can remain truly neutral, because moral neutrality does not exist. Public schools, hospitals, libraries, and armed forces become cultural battlegrounds as a result. Every clash of culture provides the state an opportunity to expand its authority, imposing its ideology on fractured and atomized communities. Whenever people cannot agree or resolve disputes on their own, the government steps in, assumes that responsibility, and gains additional power.

It does not matter whether an arbitrary law comes from a despotic monarch, a technocracy, or a democracy — it will still feel oppressive. In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions by a state disconnected from any single culture. While it may run counter to modern small-government theories, vigorous government action that defends a unified culture is often more likely to protect liberty than open borders and neutral institutions.

Only a shared moral vision — rooted in our nation’s historic Christian faith — can halt the spread of tyranny and preserve the liberty our forefathers envisioned. “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain,” the Psalmist reminds us. “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.”