We can unfortunately not indefinitelyextend the sphere of common action and still leave the individual free in hisown sphere. Once the communal sector, in which the state controls all themeans, exceeds certain proportion of the whole, the effects of its actions dom-inate the whole system. Although the state controls directly the use of only alarge part of the available resources, the effects of its decisions on the remain-ing part of the economic system become so great that indirectly it controlsalmost everything, Where, as was, for example, true in Germany as early as1928, the central and local authorities directly control the use of more than halfthe national income (according to an official German estimate then, 53 perthey control indirectly almost the whole economic life of the nation.There is, then, scarcely an individual end which is not dependent for itsachievement on the action of the state, and the “social scale of values” whichguides the state’s action must embrace practically all individual ends.
This is an interesting historical example, but does it really hold true? Couldn't the percentage be significantly smaller?
Compare, for example the work of Schelling:<br /> - Schelling, Thomas C. “Dynamic Models of Segregation.” The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, no. 2 (July 1, 1971): 143–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794.
Here a very small minority can dramatically effect the outcome of society.
Dutch East India Trading Company Ship, c. 1600