It would be difficult to wrap into a single word, but at a minimum government needs to provide for the common defense of its constituents, provide a form of criminal and civil justice, and establish a common currency for the economy, or you are forever stuck in a barter system.

I would if I were you. It sure was no dig. LOL

I believe anything get gets people thinking is great. I like your idea on private property and the role of government is good too. It may have somewhat got beaten to death this week with the treads on my 2 posts which really was my goal. I like to be around people who can think deeply about a subject searching beyond the surface. :)

I did not mean to insinuate that you were not taking me seriously so if I did I apologize. I was wanting to understand exactly what you were thinking so that I knew how to respond. I am going to reply the same as I did above in a reply to Zenphamy in hope that what I am trying co convey make more sense. In no way I am saying that government control is a good thing. I am simply saying when they touch anything, they are adding a level of control. To me that is the reason government needs to be very limited because too much control is stifling. Below is my comment from above.

I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.

When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.

I think you may be right but this helps me to see what angle you are looking at this from. I think you are looking at this like I would if it was about how I want government to run personally.

I will try this for an explanation. See if this makes more sense and if not we can keep discussing. I don't think personally we are very different because I believe in our unalienable natural rights too.

When I am talking about control, I am not talking about controlling an individual like our government is doing now. What I am saying is the only purpose for a government to be instituted is to exert control over specific things. For example, I expect the government to protect my unalienable natural rights, all of them. This means that I am giving them my permission to exert control over the forces that my try to take those rights away. If there were no one that would try to take those rights away, there would be no need to have government to exert that force or control. Therefore governments purpose is control not of the individual, which I despise but of the force that would take away my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
I hope this helps you see my analogy of this subject. If not I certainly welcome more discussion because I personally feel this is a worthy conversation.

Ed; I kind of think that we're approaching your question from two entirely different perspectives. For myself, I approach the institution of government from that of the individual (an Objectivist individual with unalienable natural rights) and it seems that you're approaching it from that of the governance, either desired by a community of non-objectivist or by some that wish to govern.

I need to chew on this a little bit and I'll try to get back to you sometime later tomorrow.

I still don't understand what you are get at. And I am not really just talking about American government. It is the purpose of government I general. And I contend that there is only a need for government when some constrain needs to be applied. Constrain or control, same thing to me.

Through the application of retributive force through police forces on filing of charges or citizen complaint and then through the courts upon demonstration of probable cause, i.e. that person attempted to or did cause my person harm and/or that person attempted or did cause damage or loss of my property and there exists sufficient proof to likely find that person guilty of such for a criminal charge, or the complaint is sufficient if correct that the plaintiff is likely to or could prevail for a civil suit.

The elements of criminal charges for crime against persons and property, and for suit for damages against persons and property have long been established and were well and commonly understood at the time of the founding.

I know 'where you are coming from' and I reject that as the legitimate purpose of government which is why I didn't contribute to your 1st post on this topic.

I will recognize that a very predictable and almost natural proclivity of those that seek or even find themselves in what they consider as esteemed positions of what they perceive as power will immediately and continually attempt and work to increase to the level of control, and then more control, but I consider that result to be a non-legitimate purpose of government.

I think you will get where I am coming from if you review all the comments I have placed in this discussion but I will just ask, how does the government do the things you are saying.

"that's" is a government of control.

In the case of the US, the founders expressed intent for government was to protect individuals natural rights which included the rights of individual self defense. The government was to enforce those rights and laws were retributive in nature, not preventive other than fear of retribution.

The 10 Amendments (whittled down from a starting list of 100 (?)) added were the only prevention outlined and were directed against the government and were assuredly intended to not let the government have control over the citizen.

I just don't see control as a purpose of the Declaration or the Constitution. The rights of control were recognized as unalienable to the individual as their natural right.

What part do you not understand?

Please clarify what you mean by, "even though that's not the intent"? What is that's?

Good question! I suspect it was a government official finding a way to make money by force. Then people lobbying government to include them into that action. But I have nothing to back that up.

Even though that's not the intent? Our founders gave the 2nd Amendment and the rule against a standing army for the reason of maintaining the right of defense and prevention at the individual level. Where and when did we give that up or was it taken from us and has that led to the position we're in today in which the entire concept of the 2nd is threatened?

Yes I see what's coming, but would it have actually led to this point had the individual responsibility of the 2nd been enforced in some manner?

Which came first government meddling in business or uncompetitive business using government to meddle in business?
(Rhetorical question;^)

'Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.' (paraphrase)