I haven't a clue their "role". I'm just trying to get a handle on your answer and determine what the gov't produces and when these "producers" produce something, excatly what happens when the labor force is reduced.
To prove the principle of the thing, let's consider the hardest possible government employees there are to criticize. Say, a highly decorated career Navy Seal. What has he produced? Security. To say that the government needed other peoples' money to pay the man changes nothing, I need other peoples' money to make my product, too. Maybe you think it's a big difference that to buy my product is voluntary for you, but to buy the Seal's product is involuntary, but that's the way it has to be. If taxes weren't compulsory we'd have too many freeriders.
BS Other people don't "give" you money to make products. They may loan it to you or invest for part ownership and probable return of principal and profits but they certainly DO NOT GIVE YOU MONEY to make your product. And purchasers of your product are not robbed to pay for your service or product and have it forced on them. Government on the other hand takes your money by force. Services are perceived but the waste is so great in government that with a few exceptions, such as national defense and infrastucture, government is by far the worst way to provide a service. Even granted monopolies with oversite such as cable or, electricity are far better than government control. Sorry to blow up your communist beliefs but most people already know what you believe in is so flawed as to be rediculous.
I've predicted for quite awhile now that a Nobel prize could be given for proving that gift giving is a grossly inefficient use of resources and or economic utility. As a result gifts are always over priced or in which wealth is squandered for sentimental reasons. 1) The person getting the gift, if they could afford it. They would have already purchased it, if they had wanted it at that price anyway . 2) Or the recipient could't afford it no matter how much they desired it. 3) Invariably this leads the purchaser to overpay for the utility(the recipient derives) of the gift given. 4) The over payment portion of the gift (the sentiment factor) is quite simply wasted as far as increasing the quality of life is concerned. This is true for both parties. So gifts are something the recipient cannot afford to buy himself or chooses not to afford because he values something else more highly. Now all you have to do is recognize that all govt services are *gifts. *Something all citizens cannot afford or choose not to purchase privately on their own. This inherently is the problem with govt spending. The economic multiplier of govt spending says there is a gain, as if it's effect on the quality of life were equal to that of private spending but it's not. Most of it is simply wasted. Just like borrowing is fictionally counted as part of GDP, govt spending multipliers are fictional in nature where wealth creation is concerned.