In the discussion of the rise of state systems of government we mentioned that people were willing to surrender a portion of their autonomy to the state (that is, hierarchical government) for the...

In the discussion of the rise of state systems of government we mentioned that people were willing to surrender a portion of their autonomy to the state (that is, hierarchical government) for the anticipated benefits of public works projects (roads, water systems, etc.), protection from outside attacks, and effective conflict resolution between the various subgroups within the state. Thus, most people viewed this as a contract between the general public (who paid taxes and gave up some personal autonomy) and the government, which provided social services that the people could not provide on their own. In the twenty-first century United States there is a powerful group of legislators who want to restrict the role of government to only the most essential functions. Do you feel that this political philosophy loses sight of this fundamental contract between people and their government? Why or why not?