First Principles - The role of government part 1

I know there is a lot of scholarly work done on the various opinions of what the role of government is.  I've read a few, and I've probably not even scratched the surface of the writings on the subject.

The earliest government theory book I think I've read was, of course, Plato.  Frankly, while I think Plato had a few good points, he doesn't inspire me as much as some of the others.  One of my favorite authors, and I think the first what I would call modern authors, on the theory of government is Hobbes.

It has been many years since I first read Hobbes' Leviathan but even though I disagree with some of his statements, this work seems to me to be the foundation on which much government theory is based on.  It is clear from the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Jay that they were not only familiar with Hobbes' theory, but believed in large portions of it.  In fact, I would argue that the seperation of powers in the federal constitution of the United States is a reaction to Hobbes' proposition that ultimately a strong authority is necessary for a stable society.  

However, Hobbes' great insight is not his much maligned concept that a stable society requires a single strong authority, but the recognition that without society an individual man's life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  Hobbes postulated the idea of a "social contract" wherein people form a society for the betterment of the group.  

But let us be clear on this point, this social contract does not mean centralized government.  In fact, it is a rather nebulous term which describes interactions at all levels.  The customs of a culture are a form of the social contract, an example in our western society is shaking hands when meeting a person for the first time.  Leaving someone's offered handshake in mid-air without an apology or comment is an insult.  A minor insult to be sure, but it suggests a more combatative attitude will ensue in any subsequent interactions.  

But I believe the point is clear even with this trivial example, part of acceptance into a society is through conforming to the customs and practices of that society.  The customs and practices of societies vary, in fact they vary incredibly widely within a society, every level of the social strata within a society has customs which are unique.  Acceptance into a society means conformance to those customs, in return the society will extend the benefits of belonging to that society to the person.  

Societies treat non-conformance in different ways.  Some societies are fairly tolerant of non-conformance, others less so.  Further, non-conformance of a societies expectations in specific areas can result in different tolerance to non-conformance.  Consider the deep-rooted antipathy to providing assistance to the homeless in the United States; for a multitude of reasons they do not conform to what we typically consider social norms and have violated much of our expected social contract.

I know, it seems a long way from a discussion about society to the role of government, but we'll get there.