Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

Tyler Durden's picture

From Ron Paul

Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Spastica Rex's picture

The law of the jungle is the only law we need.

Uncle Remus's picture

No, it isn't. A nation of laws is not the same as a nanny state. Personal responsibility includes personal safety and that of your children. Lack of critical thinking and flawed biased assumptions will almost always fail to penetrate government-funded perceptions.

The Joker's picture

Problem is, the government and CBs are above the law.  The law only applies to us.  That is the corruption.

Uncle Remus's picture

No, We The People forget all power flows from us.

Anusocracy's picture

The mob creates this clusterfuck called government and they are pretty much incapable of changing.


Uncle Remus's picture

Democracy. You're talking about Democracy.

Not a Constitutional Republic.

Anusocracy's picture

In case you hadn't noticed, a constitutional republic is what gave us this mess.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a hundred times, I'm an American voter.

Uncle Remus's picture

Turning the US into a democracy, that is, majority (aka mob/lowest common denominator) rule, is what is doing it. Ignoring the Constitution, diluting it with activist courts, corrupt politicians,  selective abject failure to enforce the law and last, but not least, corporations masquerading as people. All of it financed by FIAT.

fuu's picture

Believing any laws beyond those of the jungle will save you is naive.'s picture



The law of the jungle is the only law we need.


Government is the law of the jungle -- might makes right. In a free society one can only advance by providing service to others on a voluntary basis. Is it any wonder that a governmental system based on the efficacy of violent coercion leads to violence?

Anusocracy's picture

If sociopathy is a successful method of survival, you will breed more sociopaths.

If savagery is a successful method of survival, you will breed more savages.

If thievery is a successful method of survival, you will breed more thieves.

If parasitism is a successful method of survival, you will breed more parasites.

Is there any wonder why government fails?

GMadScientist's picture

"So are we all responsible for our own safety? "

If not you, then who? And are you sure they can do a better job than you, by your definition?

"Even they needed a sheriff."

Look up Posse Comatatus on Wikipedia and learn something.

"We as a society shouldn't attempt to better protect our children if it "interferes" in any way?"

Re-read the article; you shouldn't FAIL to better protect your children while interfering.

"Do the "rights" of the potentially dangerous not to be "interfered with" override the safety of our children?"

You are aware that millions of people own and enjoy guns without being potentially dangerous to anyone? And that these people too, have rights? 

"Just what qualifies as "government interference" and what doesn't?"

It's ALL government interference; the question is how much is is always about balancing opposed rights from several parties.

TrustWho's picture

...Billy the Kid killed for revenge because of the criminal injustice system.

Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Absolutely!

Power corrupts all and good moral men must fight evil. Power corrupts the good men too, so the system must continue to be refreshed with good men fighting the powerful. When good men shrink from their duty. you create a mafia-based society. For example, many lawyers know peers who violate the Bar's ethics, but most choose to ignore this unethical behavior. Soon, a system, that was just and fair, lowers its standards until the system's only objective is to make money...or the American Injustice System. 

The Joker's picture

Unfortunately good moral men never stoop to becoming politicians.

Creepy Lurker's picture

Bingo! That's the crux of the problem. Only sociopaths are attracted to the job. It is the very nature of the system that's broken. The only solution I can see other than individualist anarchy (that would be spastica's law of the jungle) is the Heinlein solution.

Heinlein suggested all government servants be drawn at random from the populace and forced to serve a single term, never to be called on again. They get no special compensation other than the median income for the length of the term. It should go without saying that no lobbying (i.e. bribery) is permitted.

GMadScientist's picture

Works great for the peer jury system.



Spastica Rex's picture

Law of the jungle, natural law, Ayn's Law... I was just trolling.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Since government is the initiation of force, advocating for any government whatsoever is not morally consistent. What is wrong with allowing individuals to decide for themselves, how to best protect themselves?

Do the "rights" of the potentially dangerous not to be "interfered with" override the safety of our children?

Who decides, which persons are potentially dangerous? What crime have the potentially dangerous committed, and what should be their punishment? You understand that this is a slippery slope, right?

cranky-old-geezer's picture



In the original concept of rights, yes, "potentially dangerous" people have just as many rights as others.

"potentially dangerous" isn't in the original concept of rights.  There was no such concept.  Nobody was under suspicion of anything if they hadn't committed a crime.  

If they did commit a crime they were prosecuted according to the law, paid the penalty for that crime, then their full rights were restored, no permanent loss of rights like we have today.

If their crime was serious enough they were executed.  No more worrying about any rights, no more worrying about being a danger to society.

This "potentially dangerous" concept was created as a way to strip rights away from people, just like all sorts of other schemes to strip rights away from people.

This government would love to strip away all rights from people, and they're doing pretty well at it.

Money 4 Nothing's picture

Throw away all the pencils because our second graders are misspelling words with them.. Ban them!'s picture

Then y a can have my pensil when they pry it  fiorm my cols  dead ha nds.

northerngirl's picture

This is the problem with America... American's. 


El_Puerco's picture

RON PAUL!...Hey!...Where are you?!...



Zap Powerz's picture

I like Ron Paul's message and his point of view.  I suspect many of us here do.

Unfortunately, we are a tiny minority in a country full of statist parasites that want safety and risk elimination above all else.  They dont want their feelings  hurt.  They dont want anything bad to ever happen.  They dont want to be held accountable for their actions.  They are infants crying for parental protection.

And they vote.

There is no way to fix how broken this country is.  Let it collapse, let the weak die.  Shed the dead weight and then start over using the principles of Liberty.

cranky-old-geezer's picture



then start over using the principles of Liberty.

Never gonna happen.

There's no historical record of a nation starting over with more liberty. 

It gets worse and worse till the nation collapses, then it's invaded and conquered, coming under control of some other tyrannical govt.

The French Revolution might be one case where people gained more liberty for a while.  They got rid of the monarchy but ended up with a socialist govt almost as bad.

America was unique in 1776, colonies throwing off the british monarchy becoming a nation, establishing a constitutional replublic where law was king, not the whims of rulers.

But look where we are now, communism, socialism, fascism, constitution abandoned long ago, Bill of Rights abandoned long ago.

q99x2's picture

Government can't do anything except fuck things up--period. The bigger the government the more dangerous and self destructive it becomes.

Those are facts that have been proven many times over thousands of years.

Anusocracy's picture

Progress depends on the vitality of the productive sector

Government destroys that vitality, and the bigger the government, the more thorough the destruction.

The USSR, from beginning to end, had virtually no progress.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

When you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

GMadScientist's picture

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

At least that's their argument...see US v Lopez for details.

It could be argued that excessively lax gun policy in state A leads to increased cost in state B for policing, economic hardships from increased violence, loss of tourism, and generally poor feng shui, if they wanted to frame it as a commerce clause issue "among the several States".


G-R-U-N-T's picture

JUSTICE BREYER rejects our reading of precedent and argues that "Congress . . . could rationally conclude that schools fall on the commercial side of the line." Post, at 16. Again, JUSTICE BREYER'S rationale lacks any real limits because, depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial. Under the dissent's rationale, Congress could just as easily look at child rearing as "fall[ing] on the commercial side of the line" because it provides a "valuable service - namely, to equip [children] with the skills they need to survive in life and, more specifically, in the workplace." Ibid. We do not doubt that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate numerous commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce and also affect the educational process. That authority, though broad, does not include the authority to regulate each and every aspect of local schools.

Admittedly, a determination whether an intrastate activity is commercial or noncommercial may in some cases result in legal uncertainty. But, so long as Congress' authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender "legal uncertainty." Post, at 17. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819):

Abaco's picture

The second amendment, being passed after the original ratification of the constitution which has the commerce clause,  is rightfully read as a restriction of the power to regulate commerce and any other power previously granted to the federal government. Moreover, the commerce clause grants the power to regulate interstate commerce (essentiall wholsesale exchange of goods), which at the time of ratification, was distinguished from agriculture, manufacturing, and trade. It does not give the power to regulate any activity which, in the aggregate, has an economic effect. The government's argument is sh*t.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Indeed, Mr. Abaco, indeed!

cranky-old-geezer's picture




Commerce clause applied ONLY to commerce between states and ONLY when there was a dispute, federal govt acting as an arbitrator. 

It didn't confer ANY federal authority within a state.  10th amendment clearly says that.

But the civil war changed everything.  States were conquered in the civil war, no longer independent states with their own governments, federal constitution no longer applies because states creating the federal govt were conquered by the federal govt.

Yes, even back in 1860 the federal govt had gotten too big, too powerful.

TrustWho's picture

You should go read the intense discuss the founder had about penning the first 10 amendments. They all wanted to be clear and explicit about these rights, but many felt the constitution clearly defined the only rights the federal government had and were concerned that if they explicitly defined rights to the people that they were implying any other rights could be claimed by the federal government.

Of course, they would never had imagined a supreme court justice like Ginsburg. 

DosZap's picture

Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

Years of abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause...............and now they have destroyed the 5th Amendment, so you have NO rights of any kind at all, IF your willing to GO WITH.

They only have the power we ALLOW them to have.

q99x2's picture

Secede from the US.

Laddie's picture

In March 2001 a tremendously gifted libertarian woman, Carol Ward, wrote the following, which is an excerpt from a longer piece, she pissed off the Jewish groups and they hounded her into obscurity, nevertheless she was REAL good.


This grumpy libertarian offers that we need MORE socialism and MORE utopian blather, not less, if we're going to have the knock-down-drag-out necessary to regain the soul of our Jeffersonian Republic. It's the drip drip drip of Utopianism in the first half of this century that left us in this hazy-semi-conscious-lock-step, each time gubmint says "pay up" or else.

Why not say --Bring it all on - all of it. Utopians in all three branches of government. Confiscate the guns. Photo cop in every intersection. Breathalyzer and retina scans at freeway ramps. 70% death tax [just to churn the economy for the benefit of the "needy".] Cradle to grave healthcare will endure only until somebody discovers that certain "behaviors" mean higher "costs". Utopians may be surprisingly niggardly with public dollars when exponential demand by the "unfit", "imperfect", and "unhealthy", drain the treasury of discretionary dollars, which could be used to rescue aging rock climbers and provide necessary paths for bicycle riding city dwellers.

We will make them hate each other as much as they hate us.

But wait, you say, we can't do this. It means the end of life, as we know it. Utopia requires a police state. And a police state ends constitutional government. Constitutional government has already been reduced to what the meaning of is - is. It's whatever they say it is so long as they deliver the goods.

Elections today can only be described as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

So whaddya think is cookin?

Gamma735's picture

The government can't protect you, they can only clean up the mess.

Anusocracy's picture

They don't clean up the mess.

The taxpayer does.

cherry picker's picture

"Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?"


No damn way.  I'm not going to pay for it either.  That is like paying to have someone take away my liberty while another thing I don't want to pay for is Gitmo, drones and murder.


Fed, you are on your own.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Thank you Ron Paul. your voice is heard , the people who can understand agree. separation is the only answer as the basic understanding of the role of government is discussed we see those who demand slavery. let them go..freemen are the only ones worth living with. now we must find a way to seperate with as little violence as .gov will allow.

Laddie's picture

We should have listened to the Founding Fathers, the Naturalization Act of 1790 says the country is open to “free white persons.”


Passed by the United States Congress,
“An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791.
14 vols. to date.
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972-1995. 6:1516-1522
1 Stat. 103-104. edited version: De Pauw, Linda Grant, et al., eds.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”'s picture

Many laws from the 18th century are no longer on the books and that's fine. The founders gave us a method for changing the law. The reason we look for original intent is that in order to achieve rule of law one must know what that law means. For example, most people today would use the word "gather" rather than "assemble." But that doesn't mean that the right to assemble now only pertains to one's ability to shop at IKEA. The original intent of the law must be understood.

The Joker's picture

We did listen to the founding fathers.  The Declaration of Independence begins with the sentence "We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that this is a racial issue.  As far as I can see it is a power issue.  I can also see that all those in power, the Fed, the CBs, the Rothchildren, the Rockefellahs, most of congress, etc. are all WHITE. 

If you want to make it a racial issue then place the blame where it belongs, on Whitie, In the history of the US, black people have not been in a position to create or enforce any form of legislation.  You may not agree with Obama and his legislation but if you think he created all this mess, you are wrong.  This mess was started long ago.  On the other side of it, on the streets, what is the color of the skin of the people committing these mass murders? 

You seem like a nice enough individual but please stop it already with the race card, it's ignorant. 

Anusocracy's picture

The US imported a shit load of whites infected with the socialism and fascism diseases.

Now they are importing infected yellows, browns, and blacks.



Yes, but take a step back and look at the perverse lifestyle that these colors live. Rap, baby momma, 'get money nigga', 'where my check at', yo yo yo on and on.

Ignorance is worshiped in their culture. I tend to agree with the juice that these animals are worthy of 'freeman enslavement'.

the grateful unemployed's picture

consider this interview from Milos Forman (to the Czech people) "Do you want to live in a zoo or a jungle..?  if only we had the personal choice, and to what degree we desire jungleness, and zoo-like comforts... we all want to invest in the jungle, but call on the zookeeper when the lion steals our capital... and you have to understand the zookeeper doesn't have room for everybody... there is no way you can make a jungle into a zoo, but you can turn a zoo into a jungle, if you neglect to protect the widows and orphans who buy treasury bills, or you allow the worst kind of firearms to be sold to just about anyone...

in the past there was more jungle than zoo, but that's changing, now there's more zoo's than jungle, so we want to save the jungle.  it's a noble thought, and it seems unlikely that we will ever have a world which is equally divided between zoo and jungle, and we can choose between them.. (although we are pretty close now, except the zookeeper keeps bailing out the lions who can't make it on their own, while the lions (who still can't make it) get to keep the game they do kill, but the rest of us, in the zoo have to pay for all this. it sorta pisses us off and we say, give us some of that jungle too. then after we shoot up the jungle with our guns, we try to hide inside the zoo, but the swat team is waiting, (their counterparts in finance, the SEC,couldn't find the thieving lions with a search warrant when we all know where they live. so you see it doesn't pay to live through symbolism, like the wild west, and free guns for everybody... ) 

and potus doesn't have a clue, because he carries a zoo around with him everywhere (some call it policy on the symbolic level) which puts him out of touch. but then he gets a lot of money from wall street to do this job, to try to tell us that as our duly elected zoo keeper, he will protect us. the zookeeper must satisfy the patrons of the zoo, who stand behind the wire cage, in freedom. whatever Ron Paul is saying this. they won't let you in this zoo, as a patron, and you can't get there as an exhibit either, (the zoo is full) you live in a jungle, get used to it...

Anusocracy's picture

This assumes the false beliefs that government has to be the zookeeper and that as zookeeper, does not simultaneously create a jungle.

Four hundred million dead by government in the 20th century.


resurger's picture

I mean

"the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.   "

how much more can you be spot on Dr.


resurger's picture

reminds me of some motherfuckers i read about all day