The people “hire” the government to carry out the duties assigned to it by the Constitution and the laws of the Country… Hence the idea that the government exists to serve “the people” and we “pay” them to that. So we have hired the government to “defend” us, we hire them to “enforce” our laws, we engage them to administer our entitlements like public education, Social Security and Medicare. Entitlements are not rights, they are government programs that the people have through their representatives agreed to provide and pay for. The government has also been engaged by the people to provide a level of infrastructure: roads, ports, airports, etc.

So there are many things government does at our bequest and on our dime. So government is entrusted to do what the people tell government to within limits.

More than any other government in the world, our Founding Fathers and subsequent political leaders established limits on how the government goes about “doing its business”. And it is these limits that should make us proud to be Americans. Within its job of carrying out the duties assigned to it by the Constitution and laws of the Country, it is restrained by the fact that it is not empowered to violate the civil rights of its citizens as a whole (the exception being civilians who have failed to comply with the law and where a court determines on a case by case basis determines that the public interest is so compelling that a “right” can be suspended or revoked). So for example, the government cannot pass a law restricting your right to free speech… but if you go into a public theater and yell fire… you as an individual can have your right to free speech curtailed including being imprisoned for reckless endangerment. So keep in mind, technically civil rights protect you from government… not employers, neighbors, or home owner associations (unfortunately)… So the government has no right to tell you what sign you can put in your yard in most cases… but the HOA can! Sorry, I digress…

In addition, one thing we do is engage the government to provide public safety. Most people see that limited to things like law enforcement, fire departments, possibly emergency response departments, but it also extends into the general area of regulation… the primary purpose of regulation should be to improve health, safety, and security. When you buy something, the government should involved in making sure the workers who made it were working in a safe environment and when you consume the product as intended, you will not be harmed.

Things that are tough calls are regulations related to products like alcoholic beverages, vaping or Marijuana. All three products have the potential to cause great harm, if not used properly and the products are sold knowing many people will be harmed using them. In those instances, I believe the people whether those products should be allowed for sale and not the government. Since again it is the people who engage the government to do a job. The people should approve the general framework under which such products are sold and then the government can layer that with regulations designed to enhance safety. So if the people decide they should have the right to buy cigarettes, but the government determines that people have a right not to be subject to second hand smoke… then the government does not restrict the sale of cigarettes, but does restrict their use in public places.

Finally, picking on a controversial issue, the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS had determined the 2nd Amendment provides people the right to own guns for their self defense. Regulations requiring people take gun safety courses before purchasing a weapon, requiring people secure their weapons safely, etc. which enhance safety and security are the government’s purpose… it does not extend to trying to undermine the basic right to own a gun for self defense. On the other hand, if someone has abused that right in the past by using a gun to commit a crime, that individual has forfeited their right to own a gun (assuming a court has declared that to be the case) and so they may lose that individual right because of the “public interest” and the specifics of the case. But notice the “individual” restriction of a right that one has abused and not a broad attempt to revoke a right of the people.

I hope this outline provides a framework…