I am having a crazy-must-repond-to-everything day . So ill reply this one, and try to compensate by not even checking socialdiscussion.com tomorrow.
@bns: You say taxes should be mandatory. That is part of what i meant with "For those rights, people get (admittedly forcibly)duty for those with resources to aid others".(crappy sentence of mine, looking back ) Does saying "Either that or leave." not mean move abroad? That is a big sacrifice. I agree with your opinion about that though. (btw yes, this is a rather theoretical thread .)

I should note, I am not forcing anyone on any of the points. It is a continuum between them. I must also say, that i could have written them more clearly. Perhaps i should have characterized them as four 'variables' instead, but point learned from thread .

I got a little confused at first. I thought they were three distinct purposes for having a society, rather than different and mutually exclusive views. Thus, my responses were really strange. I finally figured it out! Yay!

Well, yes. It is a big sacrifice. Which is why I wish there were more options within the U.S. I wish you could just move to a state where the government was run approximately according to your ideology. As it is, the differences in the state are so small that the only things you're likely to notice is the sales tax and the car registration. So if you want anything to be really different you probably have to go overseas --- and that's a big step and one most people probably couldn't arrange.

Still asking why it is intellectual double talk? Seems like a pretty valid attempt at understanding what opinions are out there.. (Albeit theoretical, but that is inherent in the bottom-up approach.)
I disagree, abstract ideas are absolutely necessary, the relation with reality should always be sought, though. For one, abstractions can be used to avoid distractions. And dont you have to use abstractions about how a large population will work in a certain 'societial system'? For instance, is free market not an abstraction. (More of one then society, i would say.)
Also, the OP does focus on abstractions about individuals; to try hide distractions about differences between them. It is about what people should (not) be forced to do to reach some goal you think society should aim for. For instance, it might be that you do not think any group should determine that goal, and that would be classification nr 2.

I will try to write a better clearer version, starting now. I will post it later.

Again, sorry if you see my attempts at classifying people according to this as putting people in boxes.

Attempt of classify the goal of societial systems by their goals for individuals, as often offset by what individual have to do for it (And not by how they work.) I am not at all claiming that each seperate point them has to be either true or false in someones opinion. People take any degree of thinking that any of them is a goal. (although some combinations are unlikely)

• Nothing. (The only utterly non-authitorian point of view.)

The following also will have varying control systems, like democracy, meritocracy etc.(but those are not really the topic)
Also, people can claim to say that helping in some goals should be voluntary, for any of these. This view is not taken into account in the "right"/"left" classification. Ignoring that, the below goes from right to left. IMO forcing anything is a little authitorian; Arguably need not a bad thing. (Especially considering i am sure people will at least agree with the first one; prevent people from hurting each other.) Of course some goals may only be there to serve another goal.

• Prevent individuals from hurting each other.

• Provide infrastructure and public areas(for all individuals).(Usually idea that that does not come naturally.)

Below it starts to become more costly.(need not in negative sense) None of these are necesary obligated, as said bolded above.(Hmm, same could go for points above, but doubt anyone will take that opinion.)

• Meritocratic goal; Putting effort in giving people the chance to fill the different jobs(/parts of society), by for instance, giving right of education.(Possibly only if they have not had a chance at that yet.)

• Provide social security. Rights for the individuals like for food, water shelter, or even more depending on the degree.

To authitorian side.(depending on exact views.)

• Make individuals do things because they should; even if it does not affect other individuals.(Artsy-ness, religion, protecting them from themselves/giving them more options later.) Often done because people not deemed ready to decide.

• Do something to the universe irrelevant for individuals in the world.(For artsy-ness, religious reasons.)

You can use your imagination what the resulting viewpoints could be from the point of view of different combinations. Of course, degrees in belief in the above do not exactly represent opinions, they are classifications, not specifications. Also one can try arguing why what belief should be reached. Although i think it is very subjective, it might depend on the nature of humans; that is something that was abstracted away to reach this classification, and ditch distractions. Nature of humans is also subjective but seems more concrete to me. I guess it also depends what you are comfortable with, your attitude in life.
Again, if you think your point is in none of these, or i miss points, feel free to note. Please try to read them well so you are not mistaken though. I could try make a similar list of what points of view there could be about the nature of humans, or with what people are comfortable with; but i will leave that up to you.
I mean relative importance, existence of other points, and usefulness of this classification to be the topic of the discussion. Then again, i am not lord and ruler.

head-a-splode

I'm trying to digest your post. I'm unclear as to what you're getting at.

Many things I would find acceptable in state and local government, I abhor in a central or federal government. Much of what I'm willing to allow government to do has to do with it's relative size.

A big, over-bearing, centralized government will always fail to represent the will of it's people, even if that's what it's designed to do. I would deny it all the power and responsibility I could in favor of the more local communities who are better able to address the local needs.

America was designed to work like that, originally, with almost all of the real power, anything beyond protecting the nation and it's people from threats foreign and domestic, reserved for the local and state governments. Even it has devolved into a centralized oligarchy, while that is expressly what it's designers were against.

That's an interesting take Jasper ... I've thought about it a bit but not sure what my opinions are on the purpose. It's a hard question.

I'd add that the purpose might be different for different individuals in the societal system. IIRC, Machievelli stated that the purpose of a government was to obtain and maintain power over others ... with the overall objective of waging war. Then the purpose really isn't to help people, but to exploit/harm them to the maximum degree possible, without the people coming back and chopping the ruler's head off.

So, it might be the case that there's no one purpose in an applied system, but a cluster of conflicting purposes?

As usual, yaaarrrggg, you've made me think. So if we consider that different people have different purposes for life, then their purpose for government would come out of that, right? So Machievelli wants to wage war. A lot of people want to preserve their way of life---perhaps to the detriment of others. Some want control. Some want to be left the hell alone. Some want prosperity and freedom for all people. I guess it depends on what you value.

@yaaarrrgg: I had not though about that, so i guess the fact that the purpose might differ between different people should be added. And the point:

• To exploit people to various degrees.(For the purpose of attaining other purposes.)

This point also adresses the point whether it is voluntary, which was separate earlier.
On the point of an elite exploiting, this point: "Provide social security. Rights for the individuals like for food, water shelter, or even more depending on the degree." should be: "Be beneficial to some people.", if that is for food, water, shelter, or a second house is another thing.
In case of a small elite exploiting the general population, those people would be that elite them.(And the rest to be exploited for that purpose.)
I am not sure where waging war goes, perhaps it depends on what the war is for. But it may be that some wars are for points that i did not note yet.