Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence

Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it. — Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, 12/24/12

Why is this important? In the wake of the tragic massacre in Connecticut, people should address solutions that begin to de-glorify violence in our society. We should be discussing values and responsibility—these are taught at the family level, and government cannot and should not have any role in that. Government cannot fix the decline in our social structure. In many respects, the roots of the decline can be traced back to the government itself.