Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Friday, January 11, 2013

Security vs. Responsibility

By Tom Rhodes, 1/11/2012

Our country is in the midst of a national discussion; ostensibly about Guns, Healthcare, Debt, Taxes etc. Those topics are not what the discussion is about, only the topics that are attached to the emotions used to drive rhetoric on the real topic. Fear of insecurity, and responsibility. Emotions are overriding logic and reason, those in power are capitalizing on emotions not truth. The battle is between those who cherish security but don't want to accept the responsibility for that security. Let's look at some word definitions so we are clear what we're talking about.

  • Security: freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.

  • Responsibility: the state or fact of being responsible.

  • Responsible: answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

  • Now the problem, huge parts our feminized society now embraces the security as a value superior to liberty. Large segments of our population want to assign the responsibility for their security to the government. They don't want to be accountable for mitigating danger and risk to which they are exposed. They are more than willing to allow the government the power to use force to restrict the liberty of others so that they can "feel" secure. The problem is that the government isn't actually accountable for providing any individual with security.

    Another part of our society still values liberty, and are more than willing to accept the fact that to have liberty you must accept the responsibility to provide your own security. To have freedom is not free, because independence means that you are not dependent upon the government. The more things that you depend upon the government to provide, the more control of your actions you must grant the government.

  • Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control aka independence.

    To have Liberty you must accept and embrace the fact that the government has no legal or moral authority to provide you individually with security. The government is not accountable for, nor responsible for providing you with security. You accept the risk that you must provide your own food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, happiness, and protection. In a free society the government's sole responsibility is to protect you're right to pursue those things, not grant you those things. The reason is that for the government to provide you with security it must be allowed and have the power to control. You can't be responsible to mitigate risks and provide safety if you don't have control. So if you want more security you must grant control to the entity accountable for providing that security. This is why the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the police are not responsible to protect any individual. Since the police cannot control the movement, actions, etc. of individuals, they are not accountable for any individual's security. The responsibility for security lies with whomever controls the actions, movement, etc. for an individual. Hence parents are responsible to their children for providing security, they also have control of those children.

    Whoever is in control is responsible; period. Public schools are a prime example. Public schools exercise in loco parentis. What this means is that they have the right to act as a parent while schools children are at school. This gives them the legal authority to have much more control over students than the government normally has over individuals. They have in loco parentis because they also have the legal and moral responsibility to provide security for their students. That's why, within reasonable bounds, a school has the right to limit student behavior in schools even if that same behavior out of the school is totally legal. Hence a school can limit students from wearing gang colors while at school but not when those same students are out of school. So with responsibility comes control, and you can't be responsible for what you don't control.

    Large parts of our society don't want to be responsible for their own security so are willing to give control to the government in exchange for security. They want the emotional feeling that security provides, even if it's illusionary. This is a huge conflict with those who value Liberty over Security. Those who want to control their own lives, and determine their own destiny are not willing to give control to anybody, especially the state.

    At Newton, those responsible for the security of the students, the government school, who were granted large amounts control via in loco parentis, failed. The government school is responsible for the safety of the children in their care. The government exercised control by creating laws and rules that said nobody is allowed to have the tools to defend themselves or others at this government facility, they made it a "gun-free zone." The government was responsible for providing freedom from danger. The government not only took that responsibility, but denied others the right to exercise that responsibility. Now those in Washington want that control, but they won't subject their children to the same risks as the "public" school children in Newton. Obama, most of congress and the senate don't send their kids to "public" schools where the government is in control of security. They instead send their kids to private schools, with armed personnel specifically assigned to provide security, usually by having firearms of the type they want to deny every other citizen from having. They want and have taken responsibility for the security of their children, but don't want the general public to have the same security. They think that their ability to hire others to be that security is of greater value than poorer people taking individual personal responsibility is morally superior. That the rich ruling elite are saying, "If you can't afford to pay somebody to provide you with armed security, you aren't entitled to armed security."

    Why is the government using the example of Newton, where they failed in their responsibility to provide students with security, as an excuse to take away citizens rights to the tools that allow them to effectively provide for their own security? Why is hiring armed people to protect you and your children morally superior to arming yourself to protect you and your children?

    The ruling elite have said, because of our greater wealth and position, we deserve and will have control over the security of ourselves and our children, but you the masses cannot have control of your own security. They are clearly saying Liberty for Me but not for Thee. They simply prey on the fears of those who don't want or are afraid to assume personal responsibility. Many of the masses have proven more than willing to give the ruling elite control. Those afraid of having to be responsible for themselves, want a "right" to feel safe and secure, even if that means taking away the natural rights of others. This is a battle between those who don't want responsibility for their own security, and those who want liberty.

    If it truly was about security of children then they would be up in arms about last year's 500 deaths of school age children and thousands of injuries in Chicago alone. The truth is the government and press are only in an uproar over Newton because it was white kids killed; in Chicago the situation is black kids killed by other blacks so they just don't care. Black on black violent crime is so common the press rarely cover it. The government has created laws that target young black males, arrested them, convict them, and imprison them at massive rates, so they can deny them their second amendment (and other) rights. The liberal press's and statist politicians' cries concerning the massacre at Newton are racist, they don't care and don't say anything concerning massive deaths of blacks, they only care and want action because Newton was white kids being killed. In 2012 Chicago had the equivalent of a Newton child massacre every two week, it also has the strictest gun laws in the nation, the press and politicians know this, they aren't dumb. They know more gun laws are not the answer, but more gun laws are a way to increase state control. Until and unless they make the government legally responsible for the security of individuals, they have no moral authority to take control of the tools of providing effective security. The government wants the control but not the responsibility for security. If you can't see that you are blind.

    The fact is if you are against the restrictions on government as instituted in the Bill of Rights, you are in favor of oppression; period! Letting the state deny an individual the control of their own security without the state accepting the legal and moral responsibility for an individual's security, is in fact supporting statist tyranny. Fighting tyranny of the state is the reason the people included the severe restriction on the government known as the Second Amendment. Not because we have a tyrannical state, but because history has shown, repeatedly, that states can and do become tyrannical and an armed people have the means of fighting a tyrannical state.

    If the fact that your neighbor owns or might own an AR-15, and a few other guns scares you, move. Your fear doesn't negate your neighbor's rights; you have no right to not be afraid anymore than you have a right to feel happy, sad, or mad, your feelings are not rights, and fear is just that an emotion. Until and unless you can prove your neighbor has committed a felony or is mentally unfit, in a court of law, where he can call witnesses, cross examine, and defend himself, you have no right to control how he chooses to be responsible for his own security.

    The courts have consistently ruled against the government exercising "prior restraint." They have also consistently ruled that neither the police nor the state have a legal or moral responsibility to provide any individual with security. When thinking of security ask yourself, who is legally and morally responsible to provide that security and why? If you think it's the government you are in the wrong country and should consider moving to another, like Cuba, where the government clearly takes the legal and moral responsibility for its citizens, along with control of where they work, what they earn, what they receive, what they say, what they read, etc.

    Security vs. Responsibility the choice is yours.

  • No comments:

    Post a Comment