Undoubtedly, this provocative topic has been the most difficult subject I’ve ever written. As the Director of Saskatchewan United Party’s (SUP) Policy and Governance, I believed it was prudent of me to succinctly fashion party policy concerning the role of government. Instead, this is where my arguments lead, hopefully I can convince same to the SUP membership.   

Once I began, I quickly navigated numerous rabbit holes. I wanted to avoid terms that are associated with a government’s role, such as: Hegelian, positivism, humanism, authoritative, authoritarian, Keynes, eudaemonia, utilitarianism, positive liberty, negative liberty and the traditional definition of liberalism. My goal was not to complicate but to create a concise, yet short paragraph at a grade 5 level of what a government’s role should be. Something a politician can understand.

To begin, we cannot deny that our governments no longer represent the people, but instead kowtows to the whims of special interest groups and to the notion of benefiting itself. We also witness our elected representatives supporting the party line of the day, rather than representing those who elected them.

The present role of government is the politicization of economic life in the context of the social justice warrior. This mirage of a superficial well-being is nothing but immorality and hedonistic lifestyles. This so-called freedom causes the majority to lose our rights.

Special interest groups continuously dress up their claims in the language of social justice. It has now become a competition between groups to have their own subjective views pressured upon the government, and as such forced upon the rest of us.

These government notions clearly show that government has gone amuck, with legislation that not only protects itself, but furthers their corruption. Citing two examples:

• In Saskatchewan, our government not only protects the pharmaceutical companies from the damaging DNA altering mRNA drugs and absolves the companies from all adverse events, it also passed legislation, absolving itself from their irresponsible and unscientific decisions to coerce the population into taking these deadly drugs;
• We also observe the weaponization of the justice system in both the Canada and the U.S. Anyone who speaks out against government corruption is immediately targeted, while those corrupt bureaucrats within the system are absolved of their sins. All I need to do is mention the names of Trudeau, Clintons, Bidens and their numerous ethics and criminal violations known to the public. Yet if you donated $25.00 to a freedom trucker group, they branded you a terrorist and froze your bank accounts. Meanwhile, the real terrorists, like Omar Khadr, Trudeau awarded him $10.5 million for his troubles.

So, what are the top 5 roles, or even the top 7 roles for the government? A quick internet search provides answers suggesting:

1. Maintain Legal and Social Framework

2. Provide Public Goods and Services

3. Maintain Competition

4. Redistribute Income

5. Stabilize the Economy

Invariably, internet site after site pushes the same agenda.

1. Providing public goods
2. Managing externalities
3. Government spending
4. Distribution of income
5. Federal budget
6. Taxation
7. Social security.

Did you notice a pattern? Government has little to do with governing, but rather redistributing the wealth.

So, what should the basic role of government comprise? Now let me add a caveat to my question. What is the role of government conducive to a prosperous and moral society? Can we agree, at the minimum, it should impart:

• leadership,
• maintain order, and
• facilitate public service/infrastructure.

To answer my above enquiry, it causes us to seek answers to numerous questions. Must we have social justice introduced into law? Should governments force behavior? Should a government dictate social governance upon private and public corporations? How about our children’s education system? How about our pension funds and the elderly? At what point is government overreach? Is it the duty to of our governments to unite with other nations? What should our involvement be in foreign affairs? At what point does the protection of a citizen become an infringement on their rights? Should we allow foreign aid before our own nations’ citizens are well represented? Does the government have a right to collect taxes? Does the government have the right to restrict a citizen's choice in allocating their tax dollars? What rules should a government enforce for society? Should the government determine an individual's wants and needs? Or perhaps, decide on what pleasures us, or decide our ambitions? Ought we to include God's laws in writing and administering a just society? Should a government control the people through the economy? Should a government incorporate industrial decision to humanize work with communitarian reform? These are all heavy questions.

Classical liberalism advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. In order to accept classical liberalism, you need to take a position on a host of big questions of highly questionable character.

We no longer witness classic liberalism in either the Liberal party of Canada, nor in the US Democratic party, or for that matter, any legacy North American political party that claims to be conservative. Abandoning the idea of an objective, moral order which would define man’s ultimate good, we witness a welfare state, with a government based on ignorance, discrimination, and tow the party line.

We can only determine the proper role, function and legitimacy of government if we have a proper understanding of the causes which have led to the setting up of civil power. Ignorance of the causes when writing laws distorts the maintenance of order, but solidifies governments power over you. A government’s role should be basic, protecting her citizens is paramount. Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan, argues strongly upon this point.

A government that concentrates on equality is destined to fail. Unfortunately, society will always have some form of inequality; Individuals differ substantially in talents and especially motivation. When a government concentrates on inequality, we all suffer sustainable slavery.

The poor may experience misfortune, just like everyone else, but they will not face injustice if no one deprives them of their rights.

To demand justice from such a process is clearly absurd, and to single out some people in such a society as entitled to a particular share evidently unjust. [i]

Human goods are so diverse, it is impossible to benefit or meet the needs of everyone. It is impossible for a government to not infringe upon the rights of one to meet the needs of another. Our creator created each of us as irreplaceable individuals. We as humans, each come with our own talents and aspirations (wants and needs). It is not the role of government to choose or supply these needs for every individual. That being said, there are those who God has deemed special. The human thing to do is to support those unique individuals.

Every human, every individual owns or will differ in natural agreement. Each of us owns their assessment of good and evil because their sensations differ. If we are to have a moral agreement, it has to be artificially contrived. The exercise of governmental power is a necessary remedy for any lack of moral agreement.

It is important to respect individuals' rights and not treat them without their consent. A state that eschews social justice entitlements is in fact incompatible with individual rights. There is no case for infringing rights in order to produce the greatest good. If a state chose to redistribute rightly owned property, it does so coercively. It is up to the individual to rectify perceived injustices, not the state. Individuals may choose to conduct acts of altruism, humanity and philanthropy to transfer their justly owned property to those worse off them themselves. It should be a matter of an individual’s choice rather than the state’s. Under social justice subsequent generations inherit the consequences of previous social justice benefits. These future generations would reap inequalities created by past policies in holdings as a previous result of injustices.

Government fails to acknowledge that each person (even the unborn) owns their own body. This private ownership is inviolable. These human goods are so diverse, there is no way to justify that one’s way of life is superior and that these inequalities must be rectified at the detriment of another. Each individual has value, and this is all the human condition can consist of. Government and the populace must realize there is no value outside of a human life.

Can we have a monotonous life without some form of government? One argument put forth; humans would remain in a state of war. Thus, government provides us peace and a means to defend ourselves.

Does man have a right to disobey when governments threaten them with death? Or even when governments overstep their own constitution and infringe upon the rights of an individual?

We have a right and a duty to protect ourselves when sovereignty fails, or when it actively infringes upon our rights. Man has the obligation to disobey when governments threaten them with death. That death can be more than physical, it should include economic and religious. “A covenant not to defend myself from force by force is always void.” [ii]  At the very least we have a right to question the government, even in public protest.

The definition of what is good or bad, is a matter of perspective. Specifying a set of rules which allow individuals to pursue what is good for them most always infringes upon rights of others. An individual must be allowed to secure his or her own needs without government interference, but government must create the framework that enables one to operate without interference. Individuals must be free of coercion when opportunities come their way.

A positive right is a claim to something – share of a material good or to some particular good like the attention of a lawyer or doctor or perhaps to a result like health or enlightenment – while a negative right is a right that something not be done to one, that some particular imposition be withheld. Positive rights are always asserted to a scarce of goods and consequently scarcity implies a limit to the claim. Negative rights, however, the rights not to be interfered with in forbidden ways do not appear to have such natural, such inevitable limitations. If I am let alone, the commodity I obtain does not appear of its nature to be scarce or limited one. How can we run out of harming each other, not lying to each other, leaving each other alone? [iii]

The right to life is the right to not be killed, not the right to the means of life – to resources, to food, shelter and health care. Freedom of speech is not the right to resources like newsprint or access to the media, nor is it the right to have someone listen to what one has to say. Freedom of speech is the right to not be interfered with, so long as my freedom does not infringe upon others’ rights and the corresponding objection on others is to abstain from action.

Wants and needs are two distinct entities, but what people think they deserve depends upon their moral values and the whims of human nature. The same is true for needs. Wants and needs are distinct for each individual, not all are commensurable with each other. The idea that distribution can evenly be governed by inherently subjective notions reflects the unrealism of thought.

A market economy state who redistributes and proposes equality of resources in fact favors some values against others and thus cannot, in fact, vindicate to be neutral.

This favor of values against others causes us to question.

• What about managing externalities like that of fishing, land management and our natural resources?
• When the government provides public service and public goods like infrastructure, social security, welfare, health care and public protection, where does public service end?

Many argue that a free economy produces more inequality and more relative poverty than an economy constrained by social justice. A free-market economy grows by the fruits and efforts of an individual. People should be rewarded for the effort they put in. The larger the contribution, the larger the reward.

Should government develop rules governing the distribution and the rights and possessions of these goods? Without a free economy, the economic position of a society will suffer in the long run, including the position of the poorest. Any form of a legitimate state needs to be undertaken with a set of rules and polices with neutrality in mind.

Welfare is not charity, and I somewhat reject welfare is the duty of the state; there must be some tough conditions in its applications. There will always be those advantaged in intelligence and physical abilities. But there are many who don’t use those disadvantages as a crutch to depend upon the government. Liberty, our freedom, allows one to choose and to achieve where others fail. A person’s talent does not limit their chances of success. A free-market does not judge talent. Because many of these disadvantaged are by choice rather than by nature.

Why is it the duty or obligation of a government to provide resources to those of less talent or especially less ambition? I know a couple of individuals who are on the low end of life’s lottery (mentally) who can handle financial matters better than those who have a 25+ point higher IQ.

The consumption by today's rich will be replicated by an increasing number of people tomorrow. The trickle-down effect causes the prices of goods to drop as productivity and consumerism take hold. As the cost of production for goods depreciates, more and more people purchase the products. Furthering the lessening of production costs. The very first video disc players were priced in the thousands. Now you can purchase players that support multiple platforms for under a hundred bucks.

A free economy will always have more inequality at first, but eventually the wealth and or benefit passes to others. An economy constrained by social justice will always produce inequality, including the position of the worst off.

The other positive effect with free market is realizing increased education. As the competition for better-paying jobs, education is a must if one wishes to compete in the free market employment. As the supply of educated labor increases, one must improve themselves to defend their current income. If there are no goals in life, no ambition, no needs, how does society progress? In essence, we remain in the stone age as a wandering band of hunter gathers.

There are strong moral reasons to abandon social justice and just rewards policy. The attempt to constrain the free exchange threatens to transform a free-order into a totalitarian organization.

Under social justice, there is no incentive to work for personal betterment; resources become scare, especially in the area of education, in enabling production to design such goods. There is no incentive to invent cost saving ideas for produced goods that benefit the human condition. As a result, we suffer a shortage of skilled labor, a shortage of raw materials, a shortage of produced products. Social justice forces individuals into these soon to be menial jobs. If there is a perceived need for porcelain cleaners, government will decide who cleans toilets.

Since the late 19th century, liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. As a result, the chief task of governments today is to create obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential.

Classic Liberalism recognizes that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. Eventually, those in the majority will distinguish those obstacles and not succumb to the pressures to comply, or cater to the whims of these special interest groups. It gave me hope when after promoting LGBT??? Issues, Bud Light lost millions within a few hours; and the Dodger baseball team found itself with an empty stadium for its patronage of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Many argue that we don’t have a moral and just government institutions. Our governments, while they persecute Christians and conservatives, it in as much allows leftists, Antifa, Muslims and atheists to hold cities, if not a country in terror. This causes me to question, should the institution be nothing but brick and mortar, or have some semblance of morality, or at least hold some common sense?

This morality can it be understood as a factual matter? Should God’s law be the mainstay of its laws, but then some argue which God? That question creates the argument. Should there be a separation of church and state?

Furthermore, we must consider self-defense for you and your country. Reflect carefully on self-defense for your personal liberty. Because often, one’s liberties infringe upon another’s rights. The difference between good and evil among man varies widely. Unfortunately, too many among us allow our desires to overcome another’s right to life.

Government reasoning should be based upon factual consideration. Unfortunately, what we realize is a gap between facts and values. Moral judgements are removed under the guise of humanity and sympathy.

Then there is the argument that the rules of morality are not conclusions and that morality is a matter of individual perception.

Maintaining order requires laws to be moral and just. Without moral and just laws, our society fails to progress but lives in anarchy. It does not allow government to over-regulate.

Too many laws are detrimental to a productive and free society. Today, we witness a contradiction. Government has created and enforced laws under the guise of your personal and public safety, which contravene our liberties, yet they legalize destructive policy concerning adult beverages, marijuana, abortion, and euthanasia.

A government must be agnostic about the final ends. This is not to be a religious usage of the term, but that of a skeptic. In such a way, a government should not impose its own values, or moral approval on a matter. Governments moral beliefs hardly walk in step with its citizens. Because, usually government and its bureaucracy favor government rather than its citizens.

There must be some technical way for a government to measure the consequences and the welfare producing qualities of its actions. Government should definitely avoid the doctrine that political and social decisions should be made on the basis of which course of action will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.

A proper government for the people is one where the masses, the people, are deeply involved. It is vain to talk about the interest of the community without understanding or communicating with the public. Unfortunately, these civic consultations are usually organized after the decision is made and the audience consists of those who are like-minded to the government’s favor.

Government should be about sacrifice (not for the individual or citizen) but for the bureaucracy within. Rather, politicians end up serving themselves rather than the populace. The greatest satisfaction concerning government from a citizen’s perspective is doing the job well for the least amount of cost.

A government should remain neutral. A government should not act in such a way that causes it to pursue purposes and goals that which conflict with my (our) own. Government cannot treat its citizens as moral equals if its policies are based upon some conception of human nature which might mean that some citizens are inherently more deserving than others.

This also raises the question of what happens if a government fails to act and it causes harm? Society must also face the question of how to deal with justice and punishment when our liberties are infringed upon.

Critics of this essay will surely point out there are many controversial issues I failed to address. I will not disagree. Because of a leftist’s minimized attention span, I’ve limited the length of my arguments. If one wishes to understand more, I suggest one read The Naked leftist.

As for the problem of creating a concise yet simple definition, we agree it is a much harder role to define.

A small but limited government must guarantee a few universal mechanisms:

• Allows one to earn a living;
• Allows the individual to practice their religion;
• Allows the individual to travel freely about;
• You have the right to predicate your body as your property;
• One’s body is inviolable;
• You have the fundamental right to protect one’s property.

My solution to the dilemma concerning a government’s role comes down to three choices:

• The role of government is to secure the embodiment of a citizen’s goals and purposes, of which alone individuals can be seen as free without coercion or infringement.
• The role of government is securing the conditions, the powers, resources and opportunities, which allow freedom as self-determination of the individual to become autonomous and self-directing.
• When I asked this question to a politically minded friend, he responded: “The role of government is to act in accordance with parameters, boundaries and rules as established by the citizens of the area/region/association wishing to create uniformity in the treatment of all within.”

Out of the three definitions, which would you prefer? If wish to add your own definition, I’m open to your response.