To protect or not to protect?

That is not Hamlet, but it is the very significant question

The role of government is a complex topic that many do not understand. For a time, this may have been by default, but anymore, based on the way our government-run schools operate, it is by design. Lost in that lack of education is the government’s involvement in the safety of the people. Is it the government’s responsibility to prevent crime? To protect people from it? Or to prosecute and punish the perpetrators? This is not about protecting our borders - that is a wholly distinct topic. This is about individual security.

According to the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among men” in order to secure their “unalienable Rights” among which are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Constitution says nothing of individual protection. Can the government protect individuals? Is it capable of preventing crime?

The first question that must be answered before we can assess government’s ability to prevent crime is, what measures are required for preventing crime? The problem with crime prevention is that it either requires prescience, like the precogs in the movie Minority Report (who still managed to make mistakes), or intrusive and invasive government monitoring which violates the Fourth Amendment, though much is already in place today. Americans fail to recognize the extent of the Orwellian surveillance state in which we now live; Big Brother is watching, in a BIG way. From traffic cameras and pedestrian cameras to ring doorbells storing video in “the cloud.” From Alexa to Siri to OnStar to the remote for your TV, devices are constantly listening and learning (and many are recording). From credit card purchases at the store to online shopping, locations, buying habits, preferred vendors, and patterns are recorded. From GPS, Wi-Fi and cellular triangulation on your phone to GPS and cellular in your car to your insurance company’s tracking device plugged into your automobile’s OBD II port to procure a rate discount to the fitness tracker on your wrist, your movements are being monitored and recorded. From the smart meter on your home to your nest thermostat to your refrigerator door telling you the weather outside, “smart” devices are monitoring your electricity usage, appliance usage, and even potentially whether you are home (some found, much to their dismay, that their environment could, by outside sources, even be controlled through these devices). Messaging, social media, and Internet traffic are monitored, moderated, stored, and in some places used for calculating a “social credit score.” Since Covid, contact tracing features were installed on your smart phone and can track with whom you are gathering, in how close proximity, how often, and for how long. Most accept these intrusions in the name of convenience, security, and safety, and government has no compunction over taking this data from the corporations gathering it and using what it gathers against its citizens.

The idea of prevention is why we suffer under the tyranny of such policies as the Patriot Act, TSA pre-flight security screenings, metal detectors at schools, etc. People tolerate these inconveniences because, these measures somehow make them believe they are safer. Unfortunately, this feeling of safety is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that, because despite the enormity of these interventions, they have not provided the government clairvoyance enough to actually prevent crime. The false sense of security provided by these constraints leads people to laxity in their situational awareness and in their ability, or even willingness, to protect themselves, which leads to the next question.

If the government can’t prevent crime, can the government protect its citizens from criminals? Considering the number of violent crimes occurring on a daily basis in America, the answer to this question is clearly “no.” Have you ever tried calling the police when you were in danger or fear for your life? As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If your life was truly in danger, could the police arrive in time to protect you or save you? Do they have a responsibility even to try? According to a 2005 Supreme Court case, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. So much for “To Protect and to Serve,” huh? Even if SCOTUS had ruled otherwise that still leaves unanswered the question of how the government could ever hope to provide such safety for everyone? A pervasive police presence presents the only possible path to such protection.  It is impossible for government to deploy sufficient employees to protect everyone from threat. Aside from the perception of living in some type of military compound under constant watch, the cost would be massive. It is just not realistic to think the government can protect us all from crime or harm, nor, again, is it the job of government to do so. As cited earlier, the job of government is to secure our rights, not our persons. We must take responsibility for protecting ourselves.

What then is government’s rightful role that it might secure our rights as stated? If they cannot prevent crime, and they cannot protect us from it, what is their purpose? The purpose is to prosecute and to punish those who violate our rights. This is what falls within their purview. This is that with which government is tasked. Laws (are supposed to) prescribe boundaries intended to protect the rights of individuals. When someone transgresses the law, it is the government’s job to pursue the perpetrator, then once caught, prosecute the crimes, and when a suspect is found guilty, mete out just punishment. Yes, jail is intended to be punishment, its purpose is discipline and deprivation, not reform or rehabilitation. Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, a forfeiture of rights for having violated the rights of another. As even the Bible says of government that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:3-4). There was a time when a convicted criminal sat in a small cell and received meals; today instead, while still dangerous, prison is more akin to a college dorm where inmates pursue education, physical fitness, and employment. The threat of incarceration holds neither the stigma nor the trepidation it once did.

Government has been, for quite some time, negligent in this duty. Instead of protecting our rights and reprimanding reprobates, government seeks instead (at least in appearance) to insert itself where it doesn’t belong - prevention and protection. Instead of treating us as sovereign citizens, government sees us as inferior subjects to be bent to their whims. This is why many are so adamant about preserving the Second Amendment (yes, that again). Our predecessors of old, the founding fathers, and the frontiersmen who followed, protected themselves and fought to protect the country from threats both foreign and domestic (i.e. their own government). 21st century Americans cry for government to care for and protect them, like toddlers with a nursemaid. Dependence upon government leads to enslavement; self-reliance leads to liberty.

Do you want to live as a servant of government, or does government exist to serve you? We must set things right, end the surveillance state, and wake people from the delusion that government can make them safe. Government can neither prevent crime nor protect us from it - that is up to us alone. Government must be made to perform its obligation to punish those who violate our rights, which may prove difficult since government itself is so often the offender.