Agree or Disagree - "There is a proper role for government, but that role is much smaller then the role government plays at present."

Agree with both pieces of that statement. Of course, most Americans would probably agree with part two. The role our government currently plays in our lives is ridiculously large. The fault for our government's size lies not in our stars but in ourselves. We've asked way too much of government. We expect it to fix everything, from the price of gasoline to the color of our neighbor's garage door to the pimples on our asses. We believe that if an action is right and just then the government should be the party to take that action. We can't trust individuals to act, because they might be motivated by that dreaded evil, self-interest. Government will be fair an impartial.

That's asking too much of anyone, but it seems it's what most Americans expect. Our news media and our politicians encourage that view. In an editorial shilling his new book Supercapitalism, former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich gives his definition of government: "Let us be clear: The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals."

That statement is way too broad a definition for me. It places no limits whatsoever on the power of government. It invites government to take on any problem, whether or not that problem is within its purview. I don't see government as the fix for all our problems. I see it as the fix for only one. Thomas Jefferson expressed this beautifully in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 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."

Government exists to protect freedom, which is something we're born with that other people just seem to want to take away. The idea that it should also put food on our table, money in our pockets, pills in our mouths and ethanol in our cars is quite a leap of bad faith from that original definition. Those who make that leap have recently reclaimed the title "progressives." They frighten me. They want to build a nanny state that does everything for us, maybe and maybe not remembering that a nanny is also prone to tell you what to do and where to go. (And most of them, you'll recall from the film, look nothing like Mary Poppins.)

There are those who would argue that, to enjoy freedom, we must also be guaranteed health, an income, a home, etc. I refer them back to Mr. Jefferson. He said, "the pursuit of happiness," not the guarantee.

For me, the proper role of government is to protect my rights: Help me keep thieves and invading armies off my land, stop those who would use force against me when I'm minding my own business, assist me in the enforcement of contracts. Perhaps assist in coordinating the use of shared resources like roads and rivers. All the other things we've come to count on government for are probably more than it should be doing.

And are there not even other ways that we can protect our property and rights without having governments? Well, the next question is, "Should government be eliminated altogether?"

And, on that note...