Not really. A strong government is better to protect the citizenry of the nation/kingdom for it has the power to resist things like, oh, power-hungry corporations or other nation-states to provide some examples.
And this has what to do with citizen's safety from their own government?
This is actually false. Most genocides aren't done by powerful, big governments but weaker, smaller ones doing so to prop up their political bases. The Nazis and colonial powers being the sole exceptions to this rule.
It would not appear to be so from the list of
genocides in history.
#1 & #2 are Nazis, #3 is the Khmer Rouge, #4 is Russia, #5 & #7 were the Ottoman Empire, #6 was Rwanda so probably the first weak government on the list, #8 is China, then we loop back to the Nazis, etc. Weak governments account for a relatively small percentage and they're generally tiny in number of people killed to boot.
Essentially whatever the wants and desires of the said psychopath(s) are at that moment. It is far harder to bribe a large bureaucracy than a small one.
This appears to be based on the assumption that you have to bribe everybody in the bureaucracy instead of a key person or two (also we need to look at the difference between "Strong" and "Large" as you define them because you're switching back and forth between them in your arguments).
If I have enough to bribe Stalin, I don't also need to bribe every random Party member, Stalin's enough. If I
don't have enough to bribe Stalin, it doesn't matter if he has 100,000 or 1,000,000 subordinates at his command, Russia still isn't moving. This also presumes said psychopaths are going to use money rather than ideology, but we see far more of the latter.
Not really. Small businesses -from what I remember from the various economic classes and my Entrepreneurship class back in high school- are rarely stable or last more than half a decade despite having a significant portion of the job market back in the mid-2000s.
And this has what to do with efficiency?
Also note that even the massive multinational Fortune 500 companies don't last any longer, with multiple studies pointing to a
16 year average. Small businesses are dragged down significantly in average lifespan by the huge number of ill-prepared startups that fail in their first year. If you compare instead the exit rate (This is how many businesses from last year are still operational this year, which is generally more accurate than average lifespan*), the S&P 500 tends towards 10-12% (In the same link above). As for small businesses, as of 2013
it was 9% and dropping while big multinational's exit rate was increasing. I imagine COVID has changed things considerably. With government intervention, small businesses have been forced to close while big business was deemed "critical" and allowed to stay open so it will be some time before the smaller, more efficient businesses recover from the market manipulation going on.
*This is similar to how you would see "average lifespans" of 25-30 years in some periods of history even though most adults made it to their 60s-70s, because infant mortality was high and an infant dying at 6 weeks old drags the average down enormously.