|
The senseless and horrific killings last week at a
movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and
beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted.
Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed.
As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the
resolve to create a society that better values life.
We should also face the sober reality that government
cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no
matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how
routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or
group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our
safety and the safety of our families.
Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather
than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive
individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled
individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through
laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has
occurred.
Internal self governance,
by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any
law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but
later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models.
Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic,
and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed
without an underlying foundation of morality.
Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state
should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever
terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government
“do something” to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this
reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Do we really want to live in a world of police
checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? 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?
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined
by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.
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. Liberty has meaning only if we still
believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security
blanket beckons.
|
