Defenders of a limited government propose that if the government is powerful enough to impose positive sanctions toward its constituents, that same government thus possesses the strength and ability to impose bad things upon its people. Those of a libertarian point of view oppose this, and instead believe that government should be limited only to promoting liberty and justice for its people, imposing negative sanctions on that which threatens said liberty. What we see in present society is a government that seems to be involved in every aspect of its people’s lives, even where it is unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous to the freedoms of the people.

Many people, particularly those of a socialist viewpoint, tend to focus their sights on the seemingly positive results of the government’s actions, rather than the longterm negative results and loss of freedom that it creates. An example is the concept of legalized plunder,which the government seems to have mastered; that is, the redistribution of wealth. A government that can legally take from one entity in order to give to another inherently possesses too much power; many fail to take into account the negative aspects that this power can bring upon the people.

One can think of government’s seemingly positive intentions as similar to those of Robin Hood; that is, stealing from some people for the “benefit” of others. The trouble is that a government that is powerful enough to do this is also capable of, and in fact often does carry out, negative sanctions toward its people. This excessive power, limited-government libertarians believe, should not exist, and economic thinkers like Bastiat believe that laws which grant government the power to impose “positive” outcomes be abolished.🔹