Government and Self Reliance

Libertarians seem to pride themselves on being self reliant. They don't want government mucking around in their affairs. But if we take that argument to the extreme, we go back to John Locke's State of Nature and its consequent a State of War. A State of Nature is that situation in which every individual struggles in his own behalf. It seems to me that the Libertarian must argue that the State of Nature does not necessarily lead to a State of War. 

Locke's analysis was heavily based on the protection of property. If I must defend my own property at all times, then I will not have the freedom to leave my home to work toward the accumulation of more property. Hence, the advantage of the Social Contract. When certain protections are institutionalized, we achieve the freedom to act in the social world. But of course we get these benefits at the cost of surrendering some of our self reliance. 

The big question in the final stage of this argument is how far the Social Contract can or must go. What should Commonwealth ultimately mean? When we look to our Declaration of Independence, we find that "[we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Constitution, some years later, suggests that it is created to "secure the general welfare" among other things. Thus, the Founding Fathers saw much beyond the mere protection of individual property. One could probably say that they desired a commonwealth in which life can flourish. But there was that other nagging expression in the Declaration --- "that all men are created equal." So "flourishing" cannot just mean that we are a place where the most aggressive and privileged get to flourish. In some way, all men are supposed to be able to share the benefits of commonwealth.

It's fine to elevate self reliance as a virtue. But it is sheer stupidity to assume that everyone is in the position to be self reliant in our world. Hence, being part of a common wealth means sacrificing certain things so that the weaker citizens are elevated and made more a part of the whole. Being a common-wealth, means that the state of the whole is more important than the state of any individual.