Monday, December 24, 2012

Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence



by Ron Paul
December 24, 2012

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place.  Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control.  This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned.  Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented.  But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.  

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence.  If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.  Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.  We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality.  The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home.  U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

ballzzzzznn.

the_last_name_left said...

Here, Ron Paul says

Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.

and

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home.

--

In the previous post you had written:

"So God murders six and seven year olds in retaliation for the murders of unborn babies? OK, makes sense...only if you're a colossal mental case like Dobson"

-----

Ron Paul says religion is essential part of society, and he mentions 'easy abortion' as an indictment of society.

Are Dobson and Paul really so far apart?

Yet you call one "a colossal mental-case", the other you want as your President. lol

Real Truth Online said...

Ahhhh look who it is, The Last Fucktard Left, who has awakened from his year-long slumber to post something [yet leaves his own blog abandoned--lol].

I was wrong. YOU'RE the mental case.

Who ever said I was against abortion? My statements toward Dobson are not toward his stance on abortion. I am against abortion, but that's not what my article on Dobson was about. That's right, I forgot, you dont actually READ my articles.

I was calling Dobson a mental case because he was saying that abortion in America was the CAUSE of the school shooting----DESPITE the fact that abortion was a SUPREME COURT ruling and had nothing to do with the lives of school children. Ironically, a child could have figured that out....but not YOU.

I don't support Ron Paul for his religious views, or a lack of them. His religious views mean nothing to me. His view just happens to be that he feels religion is a staple of a civilized society, where mine is that civil society can be achieved without it.

Was Ron Paul saying that the school shooting was CAUSED because America conducts abortions??? NO, he was not---that's what DOBSON was saying. So, yes, their views are miles apart. Just because Ron Paul used the word "abortion" in his article, you equate Ron Paul's views with Dobson's----although Dobson is saying that abortion is the CAUSE of the school shooting and Ron Paul is saying no such thing??

What a fucknut you are.

Why have you abandoned your own blog for a year now??? Well, we all KNOW why, I just want to see you admit that your blog is as meaningless as your existence.