Here is another response to LongShot who commented on my previous post. Glad that we're having this discussion, but is anyone else listening? Maybe it doesn't matter.

We use the expression "civil society" differently and that may have caused some confusion in our discussion. In classical political theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) we enter into a "civil society" by creating a "social contract" in which we create institutionalized government. And in that creation, we agree to give up certain rights (like the right to defend ourselves by bringing individuals to justice ourselves) in exchange for certain protections and real freedoms. In this theory, citizens act through their government in order to solve their common problems and achieve their common good. That leaves a large area of problems and actions that lack commonality and that individuals are free to pursue as they wish. They may do this by acting as individuals or by creating small institutions through which they hope to achieve their goals. This is the realm that LongShot calls "civil society." I am going to call it the "underlying society" which is how we get together to act without working through our government.

If we begin by dropping out of consideration the complex of civil societies in which we actually participate and only consider one national society/government, then we have to ask what problems belong rightfully to civil society and what problems are left to what I call the underlying society. We tend to think of ourselves entering into civil society in order to protect our "natural rights" --- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If other governments or other people act in ways that threaten my rights, I can expect my government to protect me. Here, then, is the first big question. How does government prepare itself to protect my rights?

In order to act at all, government has to become institutionalized --- manned and funded. Modern states have separated the powers of legislation, administration, and justice. This requires people who represent our interests in all three spheres as well as staff who help to carry out government activity --- lots of money to pay these people to do what we need them to do. National government is way too expensive to manage via bake sales or car washes; taxation is inevitable (I believe).

LongShot identifies with Locke's political theory and yet he asserts that "the bigger the government, the smaller the individual." Locke himself argued in The Second Treatise that freedom to do whatever one lists is not true freedom and that, indeed, real freedom is only achieved within civil society. We give up some of our illusory freedom in order to obtain freedom of more tangible kinds. Certainly, government can try to go too far in determining our lives but wherever the line is drawn requires a thorough discussion of our natural rights and how they are best protected. It is not, I would argue, a simple matter of reducing government to a minimum.

Is government a desirable way to create what we now love to call "infrastructure"? LongShot seems to agree that it is. But how is that justified in terms of natural rights? I would argue it comes from the "pursuit of happiness" principle? We have a common interest in infrastructure because it helps us to pursue happy lives. One of the bigger issues here is public education, which arose already in Jefferson's administration --- the idea that every citizen must have the right to be educated and therein to become an intelligent citizen of our society. The underlying society can still arrange to create educational institutions (Catholic schools, for instance) to advance their own ends, but the government still protects the fundamental right of each child to receive an education. Hence, public schools are provided for.

There are a lot of issues left for debate --- civil rights, unions and collective bargaining, etc. --- but I need to end here. I would say that I have never regretted paying taxes, though I have often regretted the ways in which my government has spent our collective money. There are two major reasons why the US is close to bankruptcy today --- pursuit of an unjustifiable war in Iraq and failure to secure oversight and regulation in the nation's financial institutions. When we object to how our government behaves, we need to correct its behavior as effectively as we can, not destroy it. I voted for Obama because I subscribe to most of his ideas and because I believe that Republicans are terrible governors. [Why are Republicans such poor governors? Precisely, I believe, because they don't really believe in government.]