I doubt that you really mean it. Should an unfinished repairs job be treated criminally? Should adultery be treated criminally?
moving things as they are into alignment with things as they should be
What is the objective criterion of what is and what isn't proper government? You say it's government limited to protection of life and property but that is open to interpretation. Who does the interpreting?
My impression is that you pick a rather arbitrary point on the scale and then you want to enforce that rigidly, in order to avoid any expression of popular will. Even assuming an objective interpretation of "life and property" exists, the point is arbbitrary. On one end, why should the government do even that? Most people can protect their own life and property just fine without any government; those who can't can hire a professional. On the other end, why can't citizens set up other government functions if they want to? For example, imagine that Social Security and public education were set up based on voluntary participation. I think that would be OK (even if the participants ended up with less value for their dollar due to the government's inherent inefficiency). But you would prevent the citizens from setting such wholly voluntary system up simply because that ought not be.
By "criminally", I don't mean jail, I mean that it should be dealt with by some sort of punishment. If a repairman violates a contract, he ought to have to pay restitution to the person he ripped off.
In the case of adultery, there shouldn't be any such thing as no fault divorce. The wronged party should be able to sue for divorce. I also don't think there should be state issued marriage licences, which I suppose complicates suits for divorce, but not too much. Things like having had a religious marriage ceremony, being generally reputed to be husband and wife, living together, ect, could be taken into consideration. This isn't something altogether outside common law experience.
What is the objective criterion of what is and what isn't proper government? You say it's government limited to protection of life and property but that is open to interpretation. Who does the interpreting?
No more than anything's open to interpretation. Who does the interpretation of when a government has the consent of the people? In practice, almost always the government itself. In extreme situations, the people themselves rise up to contradict the government's interpretation. I suppose it won't be any difference, except for this: instead of interpreting someone's (or, worse, their own) arbitrary will, they'll be trying to determine what is right by standards that exist outside of themselves, apart from anyone's tastes and interests. Will their tastes and interests distort their view? Well, these are humans, so the answer is yes. But at least they'll be aiming at something higher than those same tastes and interests.
My impression is that you pick a rather arbitrary point on the scale and then you want to enforce that rigidly, in order to avoid any expression of popular will. Even assuming an objective interpretation of "life and property" exists, the point is arbbitrary.
I don't think it's arbitrary at all. It seems almost self-evident that everyone ought to do his part to protect life, liberty, and property.
On one end, why should the government do even that? Most people can protect their own life and property just fine without any government; those who can't can hire a professional.
I don't think that would work, or at least, not here.
On the other end, why can't citizens set up other government functions if they want to? For example, imagine that Social Security and public education were set up based on voluntary participation. I think that would be OK (even if the participants ended up with less value for their dollar due to the government's inherent inefficiency). But you would prevent the citizens from setting such wholly voluntary system up simply because that ought not be.
I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of thing, as long as it really is voluntary.