Why Do So Many Accept That Government Can Protect Us From Ourselves Without Totally Destroying Liberty?
{Editor’s Note: This is the 18th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, "Why Do So Many In Government Believe That Creating Money Out Of Thin Are Creates Wealth?"}"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin FranklinMost of us, from the time we were children, have been taught that the most necessary and proper role of government is to protect the citizenry. Whether the threat is from a common criminal or a foreign boogeyman, it has been instilled in us that we at the very least need a minimal government to protect the people both from each other and mysterious foreign evils. The concept of the State as protector is essential to justifying its existence, and thus the State will remind us of this necessity at every opportunity.In his essential essay Anatomy of the State
the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens...The present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve.
We are reminded of the necessity of the State's role as protector through constant headlines about the latest serial killer caught or the latest terror plot foiled. The President will march out on national television and announce that he has murdered an evil cave dwelling terrorist mastermind and therefore protected all of our freedoms. The government will even go as far as to stage an "underwear" bombing in order to justify expanding it's role in security. The result can be seen in the vast abuses of the TSA being generally tolerated by the public at large.Take the time to watch this video by Adam Kokesh, where he interviews passengers after their groping and/or radiation experience with TSA.When the propaganda is strong enough, almost anything can be justified in the name of keeping the citizens safe, logic be damned. Even upon the revelation that the TSA has stopped exactly zero terrorists in the entire history of their existence, most of those being interviewed seemed to still generally accept the TSA's sexual assault policy as something they were willing to put up with. After all, it's for their own good.And it doesn't end with terrorism.. Government has expanded its' role into protecting us from everything ranging from drugs to raw milk to imaginary Iranian nukes. And despite how much influence "vanity rant sites" (as we were recently referred to by a boisterous Obama supporter on Reddit) like ourselves might like to think we have, the general public at large generally goes along with all of it.Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?As witnessed in the above video, the people en masse accept the need for government in the protector role even when it defies any sort of statistical or practical logic. This is due to the success of State propaganda that starts with our elementary school textbooks and continues through adulthood where news headlines and shows like 24 continue to glorify the State's protection racket. The overall theme remains constant: the State is there to keep up us safe, and any suggestion otherwise gets one labelled a conspiracy theorist or perhaps a - heaven help us - anarchist!What is generally not discussed is the cost of the supposed security we receive from the State. For every ounce of perceived protection there is an equal amount of liberty lost. For even if the State did and could provide complete security, it would be at a tremendous cost to our personal freedom. The State could easily end all domestic abuse overnight; all it would have to do is place a police officer in every single bedroom. But it would of course be at the cost of giving up personal privacy altogether. Would people ever accept this? A few years ago I would think the answer was obvious. But now that we live in a society where people routinely allow themselves and their children to be sexually molested simply to get onto a plane, I'm not so sure.This all stems from a misunderstanding of the proper role of government. The historical and Constitutional role of government is as a protector of liberty , not a physical protector of personal property or lives. This misunderstanding will remain as long as the public accepts the government as the only possible solution to safety issues.In my series on anarcho-capitalism, I made the case that the free market could effectively provide legal, police and military services in the absence of government. It is important that we continue to effectively not only point out the logical fallacies in the government's protection schemes, but at the same time provide alternative solutions. It's not enough to simply say "The TSA is bad!" We must also provide effective arguments as to how and why the free market could better protect passengers.As always, the goal is freedom and the mission is education. We hope this series will continue to help people not only ask, but answer these important questions about the role of government.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
