Throughout history the most powerful gathered the productive people around them and offered protection in exchange for products and wealth. It became what we call taxation. This is what gave control to what was to become the "nobility." Power backed up the control and inspired loyalty. The American Experiment was the first time that the power of control was put into the hands of persons by the consent of the people. Almost overnight, the country became the freest most powerful in the world. But instead of learning the lesson from such a clear and obvious example, humanity is once again sliding into the rule by power without consent. If it keeps up, be prepared for a return of the Dark Ages.

Uh, having read both, I point out that the aims of the two books are entirely different. I know that to the outsider Plato's proposed government may seem to mirror the ecumenical structure of many Christian sects, but the purposes and the ideology could not be more different.

Plato wanted to rank people based on intellect - placing those with the least intellect as common laborers or merchants, those with some intellect and sound body as the military, and those with the most intellect as politicians. The problem was that this is the basis for elitism: you have the political elite who control the military who in turn control the people.

When Christ was asked by his own disciples who was greatest, instead of picking one of them, He selected a small child from the crowd. He told the vying parties that their purpose was to serve and minister to the needs of the people - like that child. He told them that only the child had the correct attributes by which to govern at all!

Now I do not defend those sects which have departed from this mandate - and some have. There is principle, and there is practice. But to propose that the principles of governance proposed by Plato are equivalent to the principles of governance taught by Christ is inaccurate to say the least.

I would go on to point out, however, that the later portion of "The Republic" does go on to point out the absurdity of the Greek Pantheon as a violation of logic. He thoroughly debunks the absurdity of a group of uber-powerful beings as capricious as the Greek Gods.

Control doesn't seem like a principled purpose to me -- it sounds more like a function or action. "Control what?" Would be the next question I'd like you to clarify about a government's proper role. Although I assumed you meant proper role. If you really meant purpose then it depends on the type of men running it. An institution as such doesn't create its own purpose -- human beings do. And many people have different purposes in mind when they run a government.

The question was what the purpose of government is. I chose "enforcement" as the single word.

The problem comes when the laws that the government can enforce reduce our liberties and freedom to unacceptable levels. We are discussing right now in my country a law that will reduce the freedom of most parents to choose the school for their children (it is not US). And this is among other reforms equally against liberty.

Control, or the "security" of rights, is the real purpose of government.

What do we wish to control?

The use of force in retaliation against those who initiated its use. And the occasional application of force to make whole someone who has lost something through breach of contract, or fraud.

Rand held that control of force-in-retaliation was preferable either to:

1. An escalation of retaliation with no control, or

2. Total forbearance from retaliation.

The former alternative would lead first to long-standing violent feuds, and then to a free-for-all, total warfare of all against all. But the latter would let malefactors steal, rob, assail, or kill with impunity.

And either alternative would make a nation-state vulnerable to outside invasion--the former through disunity, the latter through failure to resist.

The Gulch succeeds in AS, only because membership in it is by invitation only. Everyone is on the same page. Thus a Committee of Safety, and a retired judge who offers his services as an arbiter, suffice to make the society both safe and just.

By the way: the "Gulch rule" the original poster mentioned is probably the custom of never giving anything away free. John Galt mentions this to Dagny by way of explaining why he will rent Midas Mulligan's automobile for twenty-five gold-standard cents a day.

Words are nothing without the meaning behind them. And there is nothing that says the poster has to be right. ;)

I disagree that everyone should be blind to men who use force to rule other men, and always submit to them. I'm sure many Jewish people also tried to disagree during those times when the democratic socialist worker party had legal authority in Germany. Even the ones who did agree not were not treated well by this government's authorities.

Some of this sounds like some king had some scribes edit some Bible books so long ago, that it was ever done has been forgotten in time.

There are only two things that government feeds on: individual liberty and individual treasure. To preserve those, government must be limited. The Founders knew that and that is why the Constitution says what the Government can do and the Bill of Rights says what the Government can't do.

There are only two, related, appropriate functions of government. One, to protect the citizens of the country from outside attack and two, protect each citizen from other citizens. Thus, a military system to protect from external threats and a legal system to allow citizens redress (criminal and civil) from attack from others w/in the country.

To adjudicate contracts between rational parties.