R: Governments Should Protect Before They Provide

It is difficult for us to conceptualize of government in its essence. Because most of our interactions with the government occur through its tangible elements—trips to the DMV, encounters with the local police, and brief clips on the evening news of what vaguely goes on at the White House or Capitol—we as citizens do not stop and think about the primary purpose of having a government to begin with. A good conservative believes that governments combine elements of protection and provision as a means of maintaining social order. However, when circumstances necessitate that a choice be made between the two, which ought to be prioritized? This debate will seek to resolve the issue, providing us with a framework for understanding the essential qualities of a good government. 

The affirmative believes that provisions mean nothing without protections. For us to enjoy any of the goods that come from society, it is necessary that we maintain a strong military in order to defend our way of life and stabilize the governmental system. This argument can be summarized by the Russell Kirk quote that “freedom [cannot] be anything better than violence until order gives us laws.” Those in the affirmative also recognize the unique importance of protection in the American system of government. The Declaration of Independence claims that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of protecting their God-given rights. Governments, therefore, exist not to provide for their people, but to protect them and their rights, while communities serve primarily to offer charity and cultivation. Ultimately, the affirmative stands opposed to those who neglect the primary duty of government: security. 

The negative rejects the notion that provisions follow only from protections. While it is certainly true that order is the prerequisite of liberty, the maintenance of order stems from much deeper sources than the military. Faith, morality, and community trust provide societies with order that is much more powerful than any army or police force. Countless examples exist of decadent societies with powerful militaries—perhaps even our own—that have nevertheless fallen to the hands of the weaker, yet more cohesive entities. The government, therefore, should seek first to ensure that the social mores which define a people are kept through the provision of services which enhance and develop all members of society. Whether you are skeptical of the church-state separation or believe in the government’s ability to be a force for good, the negative provides a place for you. 

Should conservatives favor small government, or big? Do people define their government, or does the government define its people? And does America today require more protection or provision?