I think I know what you mean but I don't think that to be true in the real definition of arbitration. I don't think you can be a far arbitrator when the arbitrator has the power of the gun. :) That is how public unions run havoc over the taxpayers.

Arbitration

Thank you! That was my goal. If you want to read & learn more I place my 1 word in a new post called "Follow up - What is the single purpose of government...". There is some really good comments on it as well.

Had to think about this one. My one word is " defend", but defend what? The precepts set forth in the constitution. It is that simple. edweaver, good question, made people think.

protection.

Control. Synonyms are rule, management.

Applied to the personal level, self-government = self-control, rule over yourself.
At a municipal level, city government = city management.
At the federal level, federal government = federal control.

There are concepts such as self-defense, state property, national laws, and community service, but these don't cover the whole gamut found in that one word: Control.

This made me think further: Are you out of control? Are you in control? Are you being controlled?

Yes, to a large degree -- unconstitutional, in my opinion, but there it is.

I fear that if a new Constitution is written, it will make us a Peoples' Republic with collective ownership and control of land use.

Protection

I don`t actually agree with all of these things that I listed! I was simply contemplating the "purpose" of government from the diverse perspectives of those who hope to corrupt it (and expand it)...or those who despise all currently unfavorable elements...as well as those who would hope to streamline it to its minimal (but sacred) role of protecting individual rights.

DISTRIBUTION: of taxpayers` money...of resources... of rights...of laws...of propoganda...of employment... of borders...of knowledge...of education...of market value...of alliances...of "justice."

Trade

LIBERTY

Don't think so. The liberals try to get more service out of the government. Look were it got us & where we are going.

Freedom

JUSTICE but today the government does have that purpose anymore. Used for ......

I agree in principle with the comments from all of you; but I reiterate: All governments have always had the power of eminent domain. It is defined in our Constitution. We cannot get around that without an Amendment of the Constitution. End of story, unless you can amend the Constitution.

IMHO you are correct with the exception of Dagny's railroad. I don't believe a person of Dagny's character would us the power of government for private purposes. I know I never will.

Or better than that, maybe he was a man of principles that he held in high regard.

I agree that control is what government's DO. The question is, what is the purpose of governments? My answer is defense.

There is longstanding legal precedent establishing in the United States that the "fair market price" is the price for which a given property would sell as negotiated between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That is established, in the absence of a willing seller, by independent real estate appraisals based on recent sales of comparable properties in the same area. There is no way under American law, pursuant to the Constitution, to get around that. The government has the right under the constitution to take the property at a fair market price, whether the seller is willing to sell or not, provided the taking is for a legitimate public purpose. I don't have to agree with that, but I have to accept that to be the case, unless the Constitution is amended to abolish eminent domain. That has never happened in earth's history since governments have been established. There could be no "public works" construction without the government having eminent domain rights. One property owner could hold up the government for far more than "fair market value" for his land unless he could be forced to sell at a price determined by others. There would be no highways, no railways, no courthouses, no government offices, no dams, no bridges, etc. There would have been no railroad for Dagny Taggert to own were it not for the railroad's ability to use the government's eminent domain powers to acquire rail right-of-way.