It seems clear that LongShot and I will never agree on basic issues facing our government, especially on the role of government in present society. However, the conversation has carried us into greater understanding, I think, and that's probably all to the good.

In my view, civil society is formed through the institution of government and that government is the way in which people try to achieve their common interests. The origin of government is by unanimous consent but all other government acts after that are ruled by majority. One of the good things about our Constitution is that we have built in safe guards to protect minorities from certain abuses by majority rule. However, if the majority seeks action on a common interest and the action does not violate the protected rights of minority individuals, majority rules. As we've discussed, the moment of "unanimous consent" is long past and, instead, we grow up in this civil society, making our own commitment to it when we come of age.

LongShot refers to many of today's government activities as "extracurricular." However, in our founding documents we create government not only to protect life and liberty but also to pursue happiness or seek the general welfare. Hence, the majority has a perfect right to act collectively through government to promote these things. Going back to the issue of education, if the majority believes that good citizenship is promoted by educating the young, then it has the right to act collectively to promote education. Are rights of the minority violated in this? Not that I can see. Civil society provides for education but does not prohibit privately organized forms of education.

Now, LongShot claims that "the true business of government is force" or violence. And it is true that civil society acts with force. If the majority of citizens believe that government should be supported by collecting taxes, then taxes are collected by force if necessary. If government did not have the power of force, it would simply dissolve. Again, however, government does not have the power to force individuals where their rights are protected. We have rights of assembly, speech, association, worship (or not), etc. without forceful interference by government.

I think that where we definitely disagree is over LongShot's assertion that government's power is only for defense or for our protection. In my reading, government has power to act so long as it is duly enacted as a common interest, even if by a bare majority, and so long as its act does not violate any protected rights. It is fully within its rights to create an Interstate highway but, at the same time, prohibit people from driving faster than 70 mile per hour.