I understand and agree with your points, but only if government is strictly limited to providing that protection as related to individual and natural rights (which include the right to own property, to make and enforce contracts, and to conduct business as the individual sees fit). But I maintain that 'protection of rights and liberty' isn't what provides the foundation for economic growth--it's the actual rights and liberty and the exercise thereof that are the true foundation.

I realize that it may look like we're only arguing about semantics, but it remains that government at any level, if ever allowed to perceive or project itself as having a duty to 'protect' the economy or as contributing to economic growth or the type of economy, will inevitably do exactly as it has to America. The major battles between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists really boiled down to that basic concept of, 'what extent would government contribute to the economy through it's actions/in-actions and at what level would control of the economy be implemented'. Much of the arguments centered around a national bank and control of commerce including foreign, inter, and intra state. Anti-federalist really wanted that control at the 'individual level' but compromised to 'at the state level' seeing that as least more local than federal, but in doing so, left the door open for federal and political control. That was a significant mistake and loss to individual liberty and economic growth.

It's my firm belief that " Protection of rights, the protection of liberty, is a government function," misplaces the true responsibility of such function -- that it's actually the responsibility of the individual and that government should only serve the function of protecting the individual natural right of a free man regardless of it's impact on economy or other.