July 7, 2001 and January 12, 2002

I originally asked this question on July 7, 2001, and at that time I expected "many quality responses to this question, and I [would] not begin posting them until I have at least five reasonably well-written answers to go on". Well, as you can see, it took five months to get five responses, and that's counting my own! So after broaching the issue on and off for several weeks, and partly inspired by receiving an unprovoked (fifth) response to the question in mid-December, I asked the question again on January 12 – six months after I originally brought it up. Perhaps traffic to my site has increased, or perhaps the right people saw it, but this time I received five responses in two days.

This question has been debated long and hard. It seems that the role of government is constantly adapting to changes both outside and inside its bounds, and the masses can rarely wholly agree on much of anything that the government does. Still, it is an important issue to discuss, for in a government "by the people, for the people", it is up to us to elect governing officials that will shape the government into the institution that we want.

In asking this question, I was hoping that my visitors would take an interpretative glance at their own beliefs about how they should be governed. I was hoping for some great clashes of realism and idealism, of capitalism and socialism, and of freedom and security. I have not been disappointed, but I have not received near enough responses to be fully satisfied.

For your information, I may lightly edit the content of responses to these questions for grammar, spelling, capitalization, and occasionally diction. Feel free to contact me if you don't like a change that I've made.

It is the responsibility of the American federal government to protect its citizens – not from social or economic inequality, but from physical harm and threat. It is the American government's duty to serve to protect from threatening entities, both foreign and domestic, in order to protect the lives, liberty, property, and pursuits of happiness of its nearly 300 million citizens.

It is also the American government's duty, above all, to respect and to protect the Constitution. Concerns have been raised since September 11 about what is more important, respecting or protecting the Constitution. My personal opinion should be easily understood: it is far more important to protect first and respect second, because respect for the Constitution means nothing if we let our guard down and lose it altogether. This is not to say that the United States is in any danger of being wiped out; I certainly don't believe that. But by meticulously ensuring that every American action respects the Constitution, we waste valuable time and effort that could be spent doing more important things – like protecting it, or others. (And no, that is not an easy thing to say or to believe in.)

Conclusion: The government should provide the legislature, executive, and judiciary – lawmakers, military, police, and courts – and policies for their application and operation; (nearly) everything else should be privatized. However, the American government seems to have become a "vast, sweeping, monopolistic corporation with multiple, completely unrelated duties" (Nick Disabato). Well, "outside of its prescribed Constitutional duties, I don't want the government to do anything for me or to me" (Tommy Thompson). The reason for that is simple, I think: if the government simply protects from and stops physical threat, its people free from terror "will proceed to provide for themselves... That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States was built" (George Reisman).

I am an individualist who believes that the only way a society's values can be accurately represented is if people vote for and act on their own self-interests. If we all represent ourselves accurately, then the cumulative result is a society voting for what the society as a whole genuinely wants. If we vote for what we think is right for anyone or everyone else, we not only misrepresent ourselves, but we likely misrepresent everyone else as well, because we have no proof that what we think someone else wants is really what someone else wants. The only way to represent America is to vote and to act for yourself – not with complete disregard to others, but simply by thinking for yourself first. It is the only morally correct choice that can be made, or such is the opinion of the average objectivist.

Paul McCord, 2/10/2002

[I] want government limited to protecting life and property. The government should be attacking terrorists, providing police protection against common criminals, and that should be essentially it, and the people in an environment free from terror will proceed to provide for themselves... That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States was built.

George Reisman, roughly 1/22/2002

Man entered into "civilized" society for one reason: To have a life of his own; To be able to enjoy the freedom of privacy. In a savage's world, there is no such thing as "I", there is only "we". A savage's life is played out in front of others. His right to live is based upon what he can offer others. If he has nothing to offer, he has no life. That is what a socialist believes; he may deny the obviousiousness of his philosophy, but that is what he believes: That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. To quote a Christian axiom: "You are your brothers keeper." That is said instead of "you are your brothers slave."

That being said, we do not live in a "perfect" world. Just acknowledging that we have a right to a private life is not all that matters. What you have to undestand is what is involved in having that kind of life. Not only are you entitled to your privacy, but so is everyone else. Your rights as an individual extend only as far as the next person. In other words, you have an absolute right to your own life as long as it does not encroach upon someone else's. Anarchists support the philosophy where a man can do whatever he wants, without regard to the sanctity of another man's life/freedom/privacy. So, balanced between these two extreme philosophies is where a private, civilized man tried to exist.

We humans are aware of our fallacies. That being true, we have to find ways to allow this kind of life for the majority of man. Thus we encounter government.

Democracy is not perfect, but it is the form of government that seems to work best for now. A democracy is supposed to protect your freedom to a private life. Unto that end, with the imperfections of man in mind, we "give up" certain "rights". I have quoted those phrases because [for instance] I am not sure if a man has a right to kill another (unless it is to protect his own).

America was founded on the simplest of premises: That each man has a right to his own life as long as it does not encroach on the life of another. Over the last 200 years or so, however, this truth has been passed over. The government no longer exists for the good of the people, but for itself. It has taken the position that goverment exists for the purpose of deciding what is good for a man. It thinks that it hands out our rights. That is not true. The people give the government the right to exist, not the other way around. Even our forefathers realized that this could become a reality; that is why they drafted our Bill of Rights. They were listing the rights of man under a government that would not recognize a man's right to live.

To answer your question, I do not believe that the government has a job. We, the people, have a job to take back our rights and freedoms that each of us recognize as our own.

Michael Wisenbaker, 1/15/2002

Outside of its prescribed constitutional duties (We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.), I don't want the Federal Government to do anything for me or to me.

Just leave me the hell alone!

Tommy Thompson, 1/15/2002

To slowly gain more and more control over us all until we are no longer human, but mindless drones. We are all just floating along in the sea of conformity.

Anna Shepard, 1/12/2002

The job of the federal government (or any government, for that matter) is to refrain from encroaching upon the personal freedoms of the citizens over which it rules and to protect any foreign or domestic entity from encroaching upon the personal freedoms of its citizens. The government exists, also, to uphold the United States Constitution; it is the only document that ensures the safety of its citizens; if the Social Democratic Party succeeds in subverting it, then may God help us.

Tony DiLascio, 12/17/2001

A government should be chosen by popular sovereignty, and in the event that such a government no longer satisfies the needs of its people effectively or efficiently, its people should have the power and authority to revise or replace that government. A government's single most important duty is to protect its people. A government must protect its people not only from invasion, tyranny, oppression, and the typical physical dangers, but a government must also protect civil and economic liberties in a manner that best suits the people.

Paul McCord, 9/12/2001

The only morally legitimate function of a "government" is to protect the rights of the members of its society. Period. A government has no more right to initiate force or fraud than any other individual or organization. A government can not morally hold a monopoly on the use of force.

Michael Clem (L-OK), 9/6/2001

Ideally, a government should have military, the courts, and police – nothing more. Privatize everything else. Realistically, our government is nothing but a very vast, sweeping, monopolistic coroporation with multiple, completely unrelated duties.

Nick Disabato, 8/9/2001

To protect individual rights.

Tim Wickberg, 7/8/2001