By Chris Basten

We have come a long way in the creation of a central state so gigantic and unmanageable that neither its budget nor the complexity of its bureaus is within the understanding of men we elect to handle them in our behalf.
                                           -Ed Lipscomb

  If the free market truly was free, the government would not survive on its own merits. It offers no goods or services to contribute to the bargaining table. It merely coerces everyone to wire their hard-earned money to Washington for things they would never consider buying on their own.

Think of the billions that could be saved if people were allowed to have guns without centralized regulation and say-so. We could shrink the military significantly in buying our own hardware and security systems to protect our property against tyrants. In fact, if we all had our own guns, the number of tyrants would substantially decrease because we wouldn’t have to be as paranoid about the infringement of our rights. But since the government has to look busy, it keeps spending money on the military and federal agents to make it look like it is a vital resource to the economy. Idle tanks and guns make people start to wonder what we need them for.

The incredible amount of waste aimed at a Homeland Security Department is futile to the core. The government refused to protect us and take action when signs of terrorism were evident long before 9/11. What makes us think that things have changed just because another pointless department with a fancy name and a bloated budget has been created? Increasing government "protection" only creates more lobbyists who will defend another program that doesn’t work so they don’t lose the money they collect from taxpayers. Some protection that is.

Any land is open to violence and abuse from trespassers. That is why it is much better for actual landowners to control their property’s own destiny. Someone who actually owns property is more accountable in protecting it. Think of how much safer and less intrusive airports would be if they were allowed to protect their own terminals and airplanes. Federal security guards receive a paycheck regardless of how well they do and then are defended for their disorganized nature because we are told things would be so much more dangerous without them.

The trillions of dollars confiscated from our pocketbooks for defending our nation has done nothing. There are no signs that America is any better protected against anything. How can we trust Washington to defend us when they cannot even protect themselves from an attack on their own Pentagon which houses the Department of Defense? The government’s protection is a myth. The answer from bureaucrats and congressmen is always to throw more money at it -- our money.

Despite the fact that having more money cannot improve mismanagement, the government thinks that it can beat the odds and we suffer significantly because of it. Instead of individuals deciding whether or not they want to continue doing business with politicians, we all have to put up with funding them because of the small constituents who support them: voters. Their misguided belief that everyone should have to pay for their views and their programs is immoral. If I don’t want to fund government coercion, I shouldn’t have to. That’s the paradox inherent in force, however. Force begets more force when there are members who approve of it.

Nothing in life is 100% secure. We can do our best to fortify our property and investments but risks are inherent in life. It is risk that makes us more informed and attentive so that we can brace for it when it inevitably occurs. No amount of coercion or money can erase the threats inherent to our security in life. The government lies and tells us otherwise. They purport that they will protect us and force companies to insure and treat us as victims if something bad does happen. The misery that is wrought from this is immeasurable. Irresponsibility reigns and carefulness is tossed out the window. Because the government thinks it can transcend the laws of nature with all of its departments, henchmen, and bombs, we are forced to put up with risks to the existence of humanity instead of just those that we can deal with on our own individual strength.

Ironically, the more insecure the government is about its well-being, the more it advertises that it has the responsibility to protect us. Instead of recognizing that security is a myth, Congress, or the President that bypasses it, creates laws and passes bills that reinforce its pervasive uselessness. But you, as the government’s customer, cannot request a disconnection like you can with your local phone company if you are dissatisfied with poor service. If you do attempt to discontinue funding the government for services that are horribly rendered or not delivered as advertised, see how long it takes before they force you against your will to pay your dues or threaten you with prison time for making your own decisions. You cannot choose to ignore them and take your business elsewhere.

Such is life when security is handled by the government. It is made as much a monopoly as it is a myth.