The Natural State of Society ...

So, it seems like, in order to evaluate the roll of the government, the natural state of society should be looked at.     

To do that, I'd just like to cite an example used multiple times by people on both sides.  "If Caveman A invents something to make his life and survival easier, say, a wheel, he has the right to use it and ask for something in return from Caveman B to use it."  versus  "Caveman A does not have the right to ask payment from Caveman B who needs the tool, say, a wheel, to survive."     

Actually, Caveman B does not need the wheel to survive, he was surviving before.  The wheel makes his survival easier, but that does not make it necessary!  Fastforward a couple million years or so, and we're having the same debate about health care, etcetera.  The person in the country today who gets the worst health care is still better off than the person in the country fifty years ago who got the best health care!   

The definition of "necessity" seems to change depending on what is available to us.  This links with the definition of poverty being, in many people's eyes, somebody having less, relatively speaking, than other members of society.         

I am not a fan of this definition of poverty.  First, I don't think that's accurate.  Second, I don't agree with judging people (on anything) purely based on where they stand compared to others.  Third, the practical implication of this is that, unless we equalize final wealth, poverty will never be eliminated.  I disagree with that notion, partially because I do not, in any way, believe that final wealth is the ultimate indicator of prosperity (and I find it very ironic that it is often the very people who say that materialism is bad, we should not value materials, but, instead, what's on the inside, and happiness, who advocate a society which is based solely around the final equality of distribution of materials).                 

How would I define poverty?  I would define poverty as people who have no opportunity for advancement.  When people suffer a severe enough depletion of material goods that they simply have to struggle day to day, that is poverty.  When people do not have access to the information needed to advance or choose their own destiny, that is poverty.  When people are controlled by other people, that is poverty.  Poverty comes from the lack of an ability to choose.                                         

Fixing the final end wealth does not change poverty, it just gives it a way to keep going forward by giving people a way to get around dealing with the real problem.  Ensuring that everybody has a chance to choose what they want to do is the only way to eliminate true poverty.                

Hmm, I got a little off track there, oh well, next time.  (Ok, final thesis of the original post:  Assuming that the government has to equalize wealth is to assume that society naturally functions on a level in which, for some people to have, other people have to not have, and, what is good for one person is bad for another, etcetera.  This is not the case, people can benefit from each other's presence, and that is why we are social creatures.  With this as the assumption, the only thing necessary is to prevent people from exploiting other people.  This leaves the positive interactions and removes the negative ones, leading to a more prosperous society than simply leveling the end result.).