The biggest issue I see with this article is that, like many people, it attempts to break down the issue of governance into one of more vs less: We don’t suffe

The biggest issue I see with this article is that, like many people, it attempts to break down the issue of governance into one of more vs less: We don’t suffer from too much governance, we suffer from too little : no effective climate regulation, no effective nanobio risk regulation. In particular, the author seems to favor government actions when it protects people from violent or unintentionally dangerous acts of others. But this isn't the same as "more governance". Most of what existing western governments do is not protecting against the mafia, climate change or rogue nanobots. It's redistribution schemes - from the taxpayer to Blackwater/Solyndra/RIAA, from the young to the old or from private sector workers to public sector workers. In particular, when Vinay mentions the state going bankrupt, it's the redistribution schemes that comprise the bulk of the problem, not protection against men with guns and nanobots. One could easily increase the governance Vinay wants while dramatically reducing governance overall, or vice versa.