A government is both great and sad. It is great because it overcomes the weaknesses of the individual and embodies our lofty aspirations. It is sad because it build itself on the inability of societies to function in harmony without some degree of coercion/authority.

Hence, the focus of a government should be self-destruction so as to achieve true and everlasting harmony among peoples of all castes and creeds.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Without government, society falls into chaos. Government enables structure and organization of resources. Frankly I like the concept of a laissez faire government rather than the "idyllic" communist government. Bah! But look how I'm slowly moving into politics, shame on me. I digress.
Aristotle's Politics would be an excellent source for further insight into this sort of question, or you could refer to Moore and his Utopia for some fun.

Fundamentally government provides for the common defense and defines rules for economic trade.

Unfortunately, in most countries, government had morphed into a gigantic business that lawfully extracts money from workers in order to feed itself as well as the ultra-rich that controls it.

In my opinion it should be a service organization that makes sure that everyone has all of the basic stuff they need--food, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, etc., and that protects against physical violence consent violations, property crimes and contractual fraud.

Usually to manage groups of people, especially when these groups become larger and more complex.

What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have? — MonfortS26

A government should focus on fulfilling its function, of course, which is to determine and enforce state policy. Obviously it should have as much power as it takes, neither more nor less.

A government (whether national, state, provincial, county, or city) should be:

Competent
Honest
Effective
Efficient
Responsive

Governments create, insure and maintain order. They create normative behaviors in its citizens, so that for the most part laws do not have to be constantly enforced because the majority normatively behave in according with governmental intent.

To kick ass and take names.

What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have? — MonfortS26

A government is the institution or set of institutions that people in a group give authority to.

Its focus should be on preserving and maintaining the group.

It should have the degree of power that preserves and maintains the group.

I often disagree with the economist Herbert Gintis, but he gave a pretty solid answer I think:

"The government is an institutional apparatus that interacts with family units, residential communities, markets and economic institutions, as part of the process of social and economic development and change. It has no "purpose." Rather, it has a structural position in a constellation of institutions that further (or retard) social development.

Governments that promote the passage from poverty and ignorance to prosperity, wisdom, and the possession of skills have proliferated around the world, and will continue to do so, at least in the near future (until some technical development permits an efficient form of totalitarian rule---hopefully something that will never happen). Reducing poverty is in the same category as disease control."

https://www.amazon.com/review/R1NX9L84XFXFY2

Uncle Karl says that the state is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie.

Pick up the trash, defend the country from foreign attack. End of story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

What is the purpose of government?
MonfortS26
145
What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have? — MonfortS26

1. The purpose of government is to lift humankind out of the state of nature and the war of all against all that the state of nature essentially entails Government creates an ordered, civil society in which human beings can not only coexist - when they aren't killing each other - but cooperate with each other.

2. The focus of the government should be twofold:

a) Creating a society that's worth living in - i.e. better than the state of nature
b) defending that society from external and internal threats that would destroy it

3. The power of the government should be however much power is needed to accomplish its purpose of creating an ordered, civil society that's worth living in and to be able to defend that society.

Kids govern their pets.
Parents govern their kids.
Teachers govern their students.
Bosses govern their employees.

Everyone knows what it's like to govern something, even if it's just a matter of governing your own thoughts and feelings. The more people you're in charge of, or the more complex the job, the more variables will be added, but the principle is the same in all of them; be responsible for what you have.

It has no "purpose." Rather, it has a structural position in a constellation of institutions that further (or retard) social development. — Saphsin

Hi Saphsin. "No purpose" sounds like a misnomer of some kind, because a purpose is defined in the very next sentence (e.g. "a structural position in a constellation of institutions that further (or retard) social development."[/quote]

Can you elaborate on what you think Herbert meant by no purpose?

Uncle Karl says that the state is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie. — Bitter Crank

But there must be governance of some kind...

Competent
Honest
Effective
Efficient
Responsive — Bitter Crank

haha, it's spells cheer.

To do stuff and things so I can do my stuff and things.

But there must be governance of some kind... — John Days

Yes. But in whose interest? Marx observed that in capitalist economies the state (the government) is the servant of the wealthy business class. That's fine if one likes it that way. But some people would like the state to be the servant of much more of the population which lives under the effects of its activities.

I also think the democratic government's main function is to maintain the dominant capitalist power relations.

Are there any anarchists on here? Can anyone please point me to a piece of good contemporary anarchist writing?

As a general rule, the government should do what the electorate asks it to do. Governments are established "by the people, for the people".

But then, at least in principle, that should be balanced by moral concerns. Although in a democracy that could be difficult to achieve if the majority aren't ethical and vote for things like slavery, sexism, homophobia, etc.

I am in sympathy with anarchists, through anarchy-syndicalism, a combination of industrial unionism and anarchism -- represented in the Industrial Workers of the World, abbreviated IWW.

When you say 'contemporary' do you mean 19th century? 20th century? or 21st century?

For the latest, go to the web. Wikipedia has some articles on contemporary anarchism which are a good starting point (of course I don't know what your starting point is -- have you already read older anarchism writing?). There are quite a few sites specializing in various strands of anarchism. Google/Bing/Dogpile/etc. a search for anarchism, and hunt around.

Enquiry Concerning Political Justice by the Englishman William Godwin, 1793 is one of the earliest writings on anarchism. Then there is a German Max Stirner (1806-1856), a Frenchman, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), and two Russians, Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). Emma Goldman should definitely be read. She was a leading Anarchist thinker, speaker, organizer, and writer.

During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and denounced by detractors as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution.[3] Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues, including prisons, atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, capitalism, marriage, free love, and homosexuality. Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminism and its efforts toward women's suffrage, she developed new ways of incorporating gender politics into anarchism. After decades of obscurity, Goldman gained iconic status by a revival of interest in her life in the 1970s, when feminist and anarchist scholars rekindled popular interest. — INFO SHOP (Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth)

Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays is an enjoyable read. she lived from 1869 - 1940.

In one word: "Accountable"