Should the government be responsible for protecting and assisting its citizens who deviate far from the ideal?

The oldest and simplest justification for government is as protector: protecting citizens from violence.

thomas hobbes’ leviathan describes a world of unrelenting insecurity without a government to provide the safety of law and order, protecting citizens from each other and from foreign foes. the horrors of little or no government to provide that function are on global display in the world’s many fragile states and essentially ungoverned regions. and indeed, when the chaos of war and disorder mounts too high, citizens will choose even despotic and fanatic governments, such as the taliban and isis, over the depredations of warring bands.

the idea of government as protector requires taxes to fund, train and equip an army and a police force; to build courts and jails; and to elect or appoint the officials to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break. regarding foreign threats, government as protector requires the ability to meet and treat with other governments as well as to fight them. this minimalist view of government is clearly on display in the early days of the american republic, comprised of the president, congress, supreme court and departments of treasury, war, state and justice.

Hello there!

You would change "The statue is being visited by hundreds of tourists every year" to "Hundreds of tourists visit the statue every year"

I’ll help with anything else you need!

I hope I helped

@X8lue83rryX

(Could I get Brainliest?)