fibber

I'ld have to state the government's role as more of attempting to balance the will of the majority VS the rights of a single person. That being said the balance sways both ways at different points in our history.

The first example that comes to mind is based on the first amendment. By strict adherance to the first, I should be able to put a transmitter on top of my house and spew any shit I want to anyone who can get the signal on their set. We have established the FCC there to actually protect the majority at the expense of the rights of the minority, namely me, in that case. The protection extends from their controlling of the spectrum and distributing it to those who are willing to use the airwaves to provide for the local interests since the spectrum is like public land, and owned by the people but administered by the gov't.

Now if TV stations do anything for the benefit of the local people beyond local news anymore is another topic entirely, I think it's a decent example of the balance principle though.

Also be carefull of the use of right and wrong here. We don't lock folks up because murder is wrong, we lock them up because their right to do as they please has been deemed not as important as one of the basic rights, that of life, as in life, liberty ,and the persuit of happiness. They have infringed on the more important right. The gov't should strive to be amoral, but it does have to accept some semblance of morality when deciding which rights should have precedent over others.

-fibber