Larenxis (affirmative) and SeldonMMDCXXXIX (negative) have taken on this topic for a casual debate. The rules are simple: three posts each, alternating from Larenxis first, to Seldon, to Larenxis and so on- like a standard debate with one person representing each side. Each poster has 24 hours to respond to the latest post or will be considered to forfeit. This rule is a bit harsh but it's so all other posters don't have to wait too long before they can all join in with their own thoughts. Everyone besides Larenxis and Seldon are asked to please NOT POST until the debate has ended. If you hate that the debate closes off a more free-form argument please don't drag this thread off-topic. Instead take your (polite) complaints to the debate thread that was created with this idea in mind: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.60122?page=2
If you don't mind waiting you should be able to air your views in a few days. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the intellecutal duel.
Over to you Yosh- Larenxis.

Third Edit: There, I've finally posted something. Have fun.

All right, let's get rolling. Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this, it's been hectic with school. Onward, then.

In the common view of things, we see government itself as always being in restraint of our rights. Ergo, the less government, the more rights we inevitably have. That's a logically defensible mindset, but falls short when one considers the reality of many situations. Were it not for government intervention, lynching and outright racism would be alive and well in the southern United States. One can argue that this represents the "least" in terms of governance, but I would argue that under the premise of this topic, the government which "governs least" would be one which focuses solely and entirely on defense (of both the national, and police varieties), and ignores wholesale social issues.

One can argue that private charity will take care of the poor, or that private enterprise will research cures for the diseases we wish to see cured, but we've seen many instances in which that situation doesn't come to pass. The government (prior to the Great Depression) arguably governed as little as would be possible on the federal level. Private charities were insufficient to help the poor and destitute. Pharmaceutical companies today are more concerned with erectile dysfunction than with creating new antibiotics.

The final issue I will mention in this post is the tragedy of the commons. The basic idea is that given something with finite resources (fish, oil, a public park), or for something which adversely affects the whole group (pollution) by distributing the harm, selfish use of the resources or creation of the pollution makes sense on an individual level, but is ruinous on a group level. Private vice is public vice, in this case. Pollution makes sense for any individual corporation, since the pollution does not adversely affect them any more than it affects their competition, and the yields are much higher. This is why we need a governing body to make decisions which are good for the group as a whole (utilitarianism)

I'm afraid you've touched on too many points for me to make a straight-forward rebuttal, so forgive me if I start fresh.

If one looks back on the black marks in our human history, it becomes readily obvious that no one person has committed evils that can compare with that of government's. Whether outright dictatorships and fascist regimes, or seemingly democratic administrations, there is no denying that the worst atrocities have all been inseparable from a governing body. Many believe it is power that corrupts, while it is also a common belief that mob mentality and other similar inflictions cause any mass of people to do wrong. Although many believe that individuals are never beyond redemption, put into a group, a cog in a powerful machine, it is easy to see them only for the mechanical beast they help form. It is this that leads me to state that governments are a dangerous thing to have, and must be watched carefully and given very little dominion or influence.

One may leap to the conclusion that an individual is not evil. Although this seems preposterous, when one compares the evil of one to the evil of a united front, it is purely logical that solidarity is a greater danger to humanity. The individual then is a valuable commodity for peace. So does it not follow then that an individual is deserving of more rights and power than a group, for example a government? Therefore the utmost freedom should be presented to the individual, and great limits should help keep the government in check?

Surely, that government is best which governs least.