Purpose of the Government
tldr: government should expand what you can do. If tomorrow you’re not more free, with more paths to take, more variations of life available – it’s failing. And if they claim "for your own good" or "benefit of everyone," that’s the scam phrase.
What is the point of a government?
The base principle is always the same – organize society in some way so it can function without endless chaos.
Every ism under the sun is gonna have its own definition. Whatever you believe, whatever they believe, whatever they claim to be, and what its actually is – all different.
Countless schools of philosophy discuss that.
But today I’m gonna provide you with just another definition to think about. One you might even like and start measuring everything by.
What is the point of having a government and the system and apparatus for it?
You know the story. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Life without order is nasty, brutish, and short. We collectively agreed to give up some freedoms in exchange for protection, cooperation, someone to enforce the deal. That’s the origin. That’s necessity.
But emergence is not purpose. We started with necessity, then we started asking: okay, but what’s the goal?
Ask around and you’ll get different answers. Protection. Order. Stability. Justice. Most are variations on "here’s why we need one" – still tied to the origin story. The why and the what-for get tangled.
So what’s the goal?
The definition
Point is to expand the possibilities of people.
At any point, for anything government does, you can ask yourself: does this help you?
Does this improve your capabilities? Does it help you to do more, to do various things, to try something you haven’t tried, to fulfill your goals – whatever they are?
If tomorrow you are better off overall – having more rights, more freedom, more self-sustainability, better economically, access to better healthcare, access to better education, the place around you looks better – that’s expansion.
Then ask yourself: are you more free, more capable tomorrow than you were before? Is this trend gonna be better or is it actually turning towards worse?
Ask yourself, what is your government working for? Does it work to make you more free, to make you more powerful in a way? In making your own choices, in pursuing the life as you want – or are they taking measures for their benefit, to protect themselves, first and foremost?
And here’s the thing – once you have less freedom, nothing else starts to matter.
What’s the point of a better economy if you still can’t use the money how you want?
If you can’t drink this wine, drive this car, have your privacy, build your house how you want…
Try taking your pension accrual to Portugal. Try packing your healthcare premiums in a suitcase. Imagine owning a house but being legally barred from ever renting or selling it. That’s "better off."
How it gets twisted
Wait, of course, this definition is very broad. What should one consider expansion, enrichment of possibilities? And it could be different for many – depending on your ideology, the answer is gonna be very different.
I started making a definition when I realized it will be twisted by whatever prick currently sits on the throne.
One makes everyone free, thus making them able to do a lot of things. Another slaps the economy with some kind of socialism, claiming the same thing. Another says restrict some things "for the collective good." Another says limit your choices "for your own good."
You could twist it several ways: expansion of possibilities demands rights restrictions, or interference in the economy, or limiting something "for your own good."
The definition alone doesn’t settle anything. Every ism has their version. Every prick sitting on the throne will claim it. In the end, it’s almost defeating. Everyone twists it.
But here’s the tell. The phrase that gives it away:
"Growing your possibilities requires us to deny you something."
Some pricks say that. And that’s the scam. That’s the moment you know.
When they say "we have to restrict this for X reason" – your own good, the collective benefit, safety, whatever – you’re left with fewer choices. Fewer choices = less freedom = not expanding possibilities.
And fewer choices mean a smaller you.
And here’s the thing about obstacles vs. disadvantages.
Disadvantages get reduced every day if everything’s cool – progress, markets, innovation, they push forward by default. But obstacles?
Obstacles remain until actively removed.
A system that adds obstacles – restrictions, locked-in benefits, geographic lockdowns – is more harmful than one that just has disadvantages. You can work around a disadvantage. An obstacle blocks you.
And another pattern worth watching – the permanent-loss mask. Some restrictions come dressed as temporary inconvenience. Road repairs. Bureaucracy reshuffles. A one-time lockdown. You can see the endpoint: chaos now, better later. That’s a fair trade.
Curbing drunk driving – that’s a restriction that genuinely expands your possibilities. You trade a small permanent limit (can’t drive drunk) for a real expansion (you don’t get run over as much, your lifespan expands). The test still works: it is a restriction, and it is a net gain in capability.
But then look at the bullshit version sitting right next to it:
someone telling you that you can’t drive this car because it’s strange, or bad, or because your modifications are wrong.
That’s the same wrapper – "for your own good" or "for the safety of the public" – applied to something that has nothing to do with your actual behavior on the road.
You are being limited on a point that doesn’t expand your possibilities, doesn’t protect anyone, doesn’t make you more capable. Theft. The logic of restriction stays the same. The legitimacy is gone.
Just watch out that you don’t lose your fundamental freedoms all the way down. Especially when they stop being providers of life improvement and start being shepherds of society instead. The moment "temporary" becomes permanent, the moment "for your own good" starts being decided by people who don’t share your values – that’s where it gets very shady. Very shady deal.
Even if they believe it. Even if it is "good for you." If you didn’t choose it, you’re not free.
Why government at all?
Well, not entirely. Let me back up. Many argue why, this is just one version out of many.
If everyone were as cooperative as me, someone who abides by the no-harm principle, we would benefit in the Total Freedom System. However, not everyone is like me, and we have someone who is poisoning things sometimes.
Well, which we are not – fully self-sustainable. Therefore we have to organize in some minimal way to coexist. Which again clashes with the question: what is the minimal way?
We collectively decide on selective application of tools to limit some. …aaaand we are back to square one.
But really, if you start to think about it – to make everyone free, you have to first remove anyone else’s capability to attack your freedom. Which is only possible if we are, each one of us, fully self-sustainable.
If you were completely independent, capable of protecting yourself and ensuring your freedom, you wouldn’t need anyone.
But we’re not independent. So we have to live with others.
So what’s the purpose?
Expanding your possibilities means removing obstacles and having some foundation to build upon. You have to have at least a little ground, where you can expand. How can you expand towards burned ground?
Build some basic state and get the fuck out. That’s the job.
Freedom never crashes
Why does any philosophy that takes absolute freedom as its base crash? It doesn’t. I say the opposite – it never crashes.
If you don’t have obstacles, you could be anything, good or bad. Well, if you have obstacles, your options are limited, whether you consider it good or bad or not.
Freedom doesn’t crash. Obstacles crash it.
And here’s the thing about mobility and independence – if your country has a stronger economy, more countries you can travel to, more trade routes, more diplomatic stuff, you become more mobile. If your own place has an economic system you can trust, as part of the foundation, you are more secure moving all around. That’s expansion. That’s capability.
The tomorrow test
Here’s how you use the definition.
Progress happens naturally. People’s creations, scientific and technological progress, constantly push things forward. So if you just do nothing, tomorrow you’re still gonna be better. Unless…
Ask yourself: Am I more free, more capable tomorrow than I was before? Is the trend getting better or turning towards worse? Does this action expand my possibilities or restrict them?
The test is personal. Not "benefit of everyone" – benefit of YOU.
You should count only for yourself. And don’t listen to what they say about "benefit of everyone." That’s the scam phrase.
The cooperation trap
You get some cooperation proposed to you. Or somebody is offering you a trade deal.
Your local pricks might say, yeah, let’s go, let’s go, let’s do it, you get your expansion, you get more possibility because of that, but watch out.
"Control your borders better, curb your crime, install surveillance over your citizens – and we’ll consider opening our borders for you"
"Share your financial data, terrorize your own people with ass inspections – and we’ll let you into our banking system."
Did you come out ahead on freedom, or did you trade some capability and lose fundamental rights?
Watch out for this crap. If participation costs you your rights, the participation is the trap.
This is where you lose, because your stupid pricks justify it by framing it as what would really "expand your possibilities, as we promised".
Real diplomacy would try to make a win-win case. You should get free in both directions.
There is a difference between independence targeted for freedom and independence targeted for internal oppression.
See the difference:
- we don’t buy into "cooperation" that goes against our citizens’ rights, screw your "international standards"
- or we want independence so we can do whatever the fuck we want to our own citizens with no external check, no one watching, no one holding us accountable
Maybe you should not cooperate with the fuckers who require you to lose your rights.
A lot of nuance at the same time, but the principle is clean: don’t trade your fundamental rights for access.
FAQ
"But what about people who use freedom to hurt others?"
Yep, be reasonable. We collectively decide on selective application of tools to limit some. Key word: selective. That’s the eternal debate – how selective?
"This definition is too broad – anything can be called ‘expanding possibilities.’"
That’s the twist problem. Test it personally: does this expand MY possibilities, or does it restrict me while claiming to help "everyone"? The scam is always in the collective. The test is: did I get more options or fewer?
"What about public goods – roads, hospitals, schools?"
Does that road let you go more places? Does that hospital make you healthier? Does that school give you more options? If yes – it expands your possibilities. The test still works. The question is always: do I have more capability after this?
"But some restrictions ARE for people’s own good."
Who decides? If it’s not you, you’re not free. Guardianship for children – yes, they can’t decide yet. For adults? That’s a different conversation. And it starts with them proving you’re incapable of deciding. The burden is on them, not you.
The measuring stick
You now have a definition.
One question to ask about any government action:
Does this expand what I can do, or restrict it?
One question about any claim of "for your own good":
Did I choose this, or was it chosen for me?
The baseline drift means you’ll get better anyway – unless someone gets in your way. Progress, markets, human creation – these push forward by default. Government that makes no new laws and just does maintenance is fine. Government that interferes is actively harmful.
So the real question is: what are they taking away while telling you it’s good for you?
That’s how you know.