To define government's role, one must first define government itself. Its only unique characteristic is the legal power to apply force. Therefore, its functions should be strictly limited to things society needs but individuals cannot accomplish voluntarily, such as national defense, border control, and some basic infrastructure.
Related Insights
Despite growing talk of "national divorce," the idea of a state peacefully seceding is highly unrealistic. The federal government would almost certainly not allow it and would likely resort to military intervention to maintain the union, rendering the scenario a fantasy.
Just as a parent uses discipline to keep a child on the right path, leaders must use unpopular but necessary fiscal measures (like balancing the budget) to ensure a country's long-term health, even if it's not what the populace wants in the short term.
The Constitution lacks an "immigration clause." The Supreme Court established this authority as an "inherent power" derived from national sovereignty, not specific text. This plenary power, created by judicial interpretation, is assigned to Congress.
The story of Vietnam freezing bank accounts isn't primarily a warning about digital IDs or CBDCs. It's a reminder of a more fundamental truth: the government holds a monopoly on violence. They don't need new technology to control your money; they can already take it by force if they choose.
A simple test for a political system's quality is whether it must use force to retain its citizens. The Berlin Wall and North Korea's borders were built to prevent people from leaving, not to stop others from entering. This need to contain a population is an implicit confession by the state that life is better elsewhere, contrasting with free societies that attract immigrants.
The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.
Command economies inevitably rely on force. In a free society, disagreement is resolved through persuasion. In an authoritarian system where directives are absolute, dissent is ultimately met with force. Adopting a top-down economic model means accepting state-sanctioned violence as a necessary tool.
The ability to be a pacifist is not a natural state but a privilege granted by a government capable of enforcing order and protecting its citizens. Anti-national security stances are ironically dependent on the very security structures they oppose, which protect their freedom to hold such beliefs.
Systems built on violence and coercion, such as authoritarian rule or forced taxation, are fundamentally unstable. They incentivize participants to constantly seek ways to escape, betray, or overthrow the system, creating a repeating cycle of conflict rather than sustainable social coherence.
The US was structured as a republic, not a pure democracy, to protect minority rights from being overridden by the majority. Mechanisms like the Electoral College, appointed senators, and constitutional limits on federal power were intentionally undemocratic to prevent what the founders called "mobocracy."
