No.
Good clarification.
One of my life-long "problems" is that I don't nod knowingly in order to conceal my ignorance.

The thought was:
I agree, that protecting individual property rights is a main role of government.
I note that some functions will not be developed by straight involuntary capitalism. (e.g. the military and roads).
I argue that capitalism will aggressively find the optimum, but it will often be a local optimum, local to the subject, and much better, larger scope optima exist.
In those cases, like the military, we need the government, or other large voluntary group to support such a thing, like the interstate system.

Is this still too full of technobabble? I get mired in it sometimes.

I was just being smartass because I couldn't follow the convolutions of you post. I couldn't decide if it was sincere or satire. Therefore, I made an irrelevant remark.

Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence had the phrase ". . . life, liberty and property." It was subsequently edited to replace "property" with the nebulous "pursuit of happiness." I don't recall why.

on the floor?

Great quote, and it exposes the moral contradiction inherent in the form of government we have today. Government is forcibly funded via taxation, which is the initiation of force against peaceful people. So how can government be said to protect our rights if it must repeatedly violate them? The only possible moral government would be one that is voluntarily funded.

What I meant was that both political parties are overprotective of their precious little children. I don't need, nor want, their protection.

In essence, anarcho-capitalists don't argue that governments shouldn't exist, they argue that governments shouldn't be based on the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. Forced funding (taxation) is an immoral initiation of force, as Ayn Rand also acknowledged.

RIGHT

Right-this is where it comes down to the moral code adopted by the individual judge and police officer. As Rand said what is needed is a moral revolution and the rest takes care of itself.

In a perfect world ---- You finish the sentence.
The knot in all our discussion is that it's not a perfect world, never was, and likely, never will be. Therefore, laws must be made with as much rationality as possible using the most rational people available. No easy task.

This is where stuff gets tricky. The use of force to prevent the use of force. If only everone were as rational as us.

No rights are possible, even civil rights or property rights if they are gained by coercion. The use of force in any argument voids the user's argument.

Are your pants in a wad?

Yes.

Ms Rand was so totally correct on this score that there is nothing that can be added to it or subtracted from it to improve it. I have heard people pronounce all sorts of things, variations of trying to break those few simple sentences. Their attempts are poster children for failure.

I would argue the proper role of government is when the monotonic optimization of capitalism will not support an appropriate global minima (or maxima depending on how you want to describe it). For example, the military or the interstate highway system.

My feeling is that the ultimate civil rights are property rights. Everything else should come secondly in the hierarchy. Collectivists never understand this point.

Please, who are the uniformed people in a court room escorting and restraining criminals or people on trial for violent acts? Law enforcement officials, sheriffs, police, deputies etc. What matters is not who hires them but under what lawful system are they empowered to use force? The only legitimate use of force is granted to the government in the constitution and whether the enforcement is a public or private institution does not matter what matters is how is the force obedient to the law? There must be only one authority with the right to use force to direct compliance with the law and it must be subordinate to the courts. Imagine a divorce with each party having its own police in the courtroom.

The proper role of a government is: to manage force. Force without management creates a positive menace to everyone in the community. Naturally it also inhibits the economy by compelling some redundancies one might find, to say the least annoying, and to say the most deadly.

To take the most mundane example: how does "anarcho-capitalism" handle window breaking? If you don't punish people for breaking windows, you're going to see some window-breaking. Now: the property owners can keep spending scads of money replacing broken windows when they could be spending time, money and effort on other things, or they could take counsel together and make a rule--with force to back it up--that he who breaks a window, pays for what he did in some way and by some measure.

And then you come to the question of "did you get the right guy," or how much punishment fits the crime. Ah, that's where government comes in. It needs police power, military power, and judicial power--and should separate the three. To that, add the power of lawmaking and keep that separate from the rest, too.

It's one thing to argue that the government shouldn't be doing anything else. It's another to argue that the government should not exist.

Allow me to point to empirical evidence that the proper role of government is better understood now than it was 50 years ago. The function of making law (or discovering it), does not necessarily mean that that police, courts, and army must be government employees.

We know many examples of private police operating within the context of uniform (government) laws. The security forces of General Motors and Ford Motor Company faced each other every day across close neighborhoods and never fired on each other. Today, G4S (HQ in London) and Securitas (HQ in Stockholm) each has about 300,000 employees in about 30 nations, and again, adhering to the laws of those nations do not attack each other.

Similarly, the American Arbitration Association is famous. Read almost any contract you have for your mortgage, car, or glass wire. As a writer, I know them from contracts with publishers. But don't stop there. Look in Yelp for arbitration in your own town. Many law firms offer it, often under contract to government courts of law.

Government remains the foundational institution of law. How that gets done is open to human action.

The word "police" appears nowhere in the US Constitution. The first civic police force, the London Metropolitan, was a consequence (not a cause) of the industrial revolution -- and it served a city, not a nation.

Most Objectivists (as well as libertarians and conservatives) will say that this means police forces, military, and courts of law. In "Galt's Speech", Rand wrote: "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

+1

Underarching, actually. The social conservatives that infest the Republican Party don't recognize any rights that their god or their tradition disapproves of.

I completely agree with Rand on this point. The problem with the Republican viewpoint on this is that their idea of protecting man's rights is more overarching than it needs to be.