I think most thinking people - even the most libertarian among us - would agree that some form of government is necessary for men living in society. It is required, as Thomas Hobbes pointed out in Leviathan (1651), to rescue man from life in the "state of nature" - which he famously described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" - if for nothing else. John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government (1689), took the argument a step forward. There are, indeed, two types of freedom: man is free, in a limited sense (at least, he is totally free from absolute rulers), in the Hobbesian "state of nature". His freedom is, however dependent (and limited) to the personal, family and social associations that lend him protection from those who would do him harm. But true freedom can only exist when a just, freely-agreed upon government, founded on a social contract with the governed, gives him formalized rules and security for his life and property. Without some government - in its most rudimentary form, simply an "authority" - man in the society of other men will rely on their animal qualities (strength, cunning and self-interest) to impose their will on men with lesser strengths (think the New Orleans Super Dome after Katrina). Without an authority to protect the interests of the weak, those who excel in applying primitive force will kill, rape and steal ad libitum and chaos will prevail.

Thus, government cum authority arose from the need to quell the unsavory nature of man. That is the fundamental purpose of government: to provide protection for the rights of all men from the rule of the savage, to wit, the strong rule the weak. The earliest forms of government were administered by kings, queens and lesser nobility. In most cases, they ruled (as is the nature of man) with their self-interest foremost and the welfare of their citizens secondary. If they were reasonably just and fair, the people seldom sought more. If the rulers were inordinately cruel, greedy or capricious, the only recourse of the people was to overthrow, usually through violence, the rulers and replace them with other nobles.

As governments (and the people) sough more stability, rights were granted the people by their sovereigns. The Magna Carta (1215) began the process of the people (through their local rulers) negotiating rights and privileges from their king to partially eliminate uncertainty and varying legal status in the kingdom. Stability was the goal and, over the ensuing centuries, it was gradually founded on chartered laws and protected rights.

Next, they was established a way of sharing power. The king first had an informal "privy council" which, while not having any established power, would advise the king on matters of state. This was advanced with the establishment of a parliamentary system in England in the 13^th Century. The actual influence and strength of Parliament varied with the king in power, some choosing to acquiesce to the will of Parliament, others merely allowing the body to exist as a figurehead body without any real power. In 1430, restricted voting on members to serve n Parliament was established. The Parliament advised the king on matters related to improving the living conditions of the people and allocated funds to undertake public improvement projects.

Thus, there was fundamental shift in the purpose and scope of government: from simply maintaining order and protecting fundamental rights to providing services to the people. The services, initially, were in the form of protection from foreign dominance, courts for criminal and civil disputes, public roads, sewage disposal and other communal works. The people, themselves, were left to their own skills, initiative, work ethic and talents to make their way in the world and, in this aspect of their lives, government was generally silent. If their "inalienable rights" (life, liberty and property) were adequately protected, in what fashion they made their living and in what circumstances they lived were rightly designated as the responsibility of each individual.

If the story of government ended here, many would not complain. When the United States was, first, settled and, later, established its independence, its first government was installed, with the same basic goals. To wit: ensure life, liberty and protection of property, protect the nation from foreign invasion and, through moderate taxation and shared responsibility, build an infrastructure to facilitate trade and travel, establish an educational system - public schools to be administered by the local communities and regional universities to, principally, be administered by the states and to ensure "domestic tranquility" through a professional law enforcement funded by taxes.

This was government up through the early-to-mid 19^th Century. As the scope of federal government began to expand (as all government naturally does), the economic power it held began to foster greater competition for the lucrative but limited jobs within the early federal system. The tipping point, in my opinion, occurred with the election in 1828 of Andrew Jackson. The rise of his Democratic Party ushered in an entirely new focus of the national government, namely, the awarding of jobs for supporters of the victorious candidate. As Jackson himself famously voiced, "To the victor goes the spoils."

The spoils system, in place unchallenged and unabated now for 180 years, has brought with it a fundamental change in the accepted purpose of government. The mandate of government has changed, having exponentially expanded, from the simple protection of the citizenry from threats, foreign and domestic, to a hydra-like creation controlling our lives in an increasing number of intrusive ways while, to appease those who bristle at the loss of personal independence, also providing special interest groups with "spoils" and handouts that were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our federal system. In brief, to appease the citizens in a time when power is increasingly centralized in Washington, D.C. (and away from the citizens), the government doles out trivial benefits to selected minorities to assure their dependence and, ultimately, their loyalty. It worked with the Native Americans and it has worked, to this point, with the naturalized Americans.

The hand-outs may only tangibly benefit one group but, due to the nature of the warped American psyche, molded and shaped from years of thorough brainwashing, government "doing good" actually appeases a much larger share of the populace. Thus, it is very cost-effective to provide welfare, aid to dependent families, extended unemployment payments and other free income to those perceived as disadvantaged because with these handouts, the federal benefactors assure not only the dependence of the recipient group but, concurrently, your tax dollars buys the support of an even more important group. In brief, the burgeoning mass of Americans who carry, like the Cross to Calvary, the burden of "white guilt."

Due to relentless propaganda, some produced by the government itself but most from the liberal media, the majority demographic of American citizens (white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) have been convinced that they - and they alone - carry the onerous responsible for all the social ills of three centuries of their ancestors’ invasion of North America. With this free-floating anxiety always present and a sense that, while they didn’t directly oppress, enslave or steal anyone’s land, they are at least in some way complicit in all of America’s historic injustices, contemporary liberals favor any government intervention that will assuage their guilt. It matters not whether the proposals actually accomplish their goals or that the lives and futures of the recipients are improved by the intervention. It is quite enough for those of the liberal mindset to accept that they (as government) tried to help the less fortunate. The balm of substituting money ill spent for effective intervention and offering up soothing platitudes ("a hand up not a hand out") is sufficient for the guilt-ridden to rest quietly in their suburban homes at night and to know, in their heart of hearts, that while they may still remain culpable, they - through Mother Government - have "made the effort".

From the days of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and forward, the liberal political thinkers (commonly known as socialists) have sought the same utopian goal: a society without classes, without inequity, without poverty and without want. It has never been (and, I dare say, never will be) achieved. Facades of equality, like Potemkin villages, may be offered up as showcases (at great financial cost) to the world (e.g. free education, universal health care, "a chicken in every pot", 100% employment, et cetera) but still there are those (usually, those in the seats of government) who live in opulence and high above the standard of living of the mob. Yet, human ignorance and ingrained guilt allow such hypocrisy to exist in the Quixotic pursuit of the comprehensive leveling of society. The doctor is paid what the plumber is paid who is paid what the laundress is paid who is paid what the mechanic is paid but definitely not what the government bureaucrat is paid. Equality is achieved, at least among the proletariat, but at what cost to society?

We need not look far for the answer. When the incentives for personal achievement are removed by government - even in the name of the "common good" - efficiency, productivity and innovation always suffer. But there is a more insidious and destructive consequence that is often overlooked or, at least, downplayed. The self-esteem and sense of personal value felt by the individual is palpably lowered. Man has an innate desire to be recognized and respected for what he, alone, has accomplished. When that is removed - even if in the name of the "public good" - that man’s character, not to say his spirit, is broken. Without a sense of accomplishment, a glimmer of individualism, the prospect of uniqueness, man loses, first, his sense of worth, then, himself. He becomes no more than a nameless cog, a faceless machine and work, not to mention life, becomes drudgery. John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt all knew this; Rousseau, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro did not. And the fate of the societies each were a part of us and helped formulate reflect the truth of the matter.

So, in this season of promises and "change we can believe in", let us be careful what we hope to change. If we buy into the grandest of proclamations - "an end to poverty, inequality, crime and unemployment" - we must ask ourselves the question that begs an answer: At what cost?

As the well-worn warning reads: "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it." And you just might get it good and hard.