Protect Me?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a strong military defense of the nation.  But just exactly when the hell did it become the government's job to protect *me*?  Last time I checked, that would be ... never.

Jack the Blogger points out exactly what is wrong with the thinking of security fetishists.  Throughout his dim indictment of the leftiness displayed by Jon Tester, JtB consistently conflates and confuses the role that our government was meant to play in defense of the country with personal protection.  The Constitution spells out fairly clearly the need for a standing Army providing for defense of the nation.  No where do I remember it calling for intelligence services required to save his or my ass.

Regardless of how anyone feels personally about the issue of prevention = defense, or civil rights trumping a need to feel safe, JtB has one thing very very wrong.  So many of us who voted for Jon Tester (which I strongly doubt JtB did) voted for him specifically because he saw the dangers inherent in relinquishing freedoms for a (false) sense of security.  That's not a 'liberal' issue or a 'conservative' issue.  That's an American issue that has been with us since before the War for Independence.  Pretending that Jon Tester, who wants to bring down loose FISA standards, the MCA and the Patriot Act,  is a 'liberal' who cares nothing for personal security ... well, that's going to be a very hard sell in the state of Montana.  JtB seems to forget that Tester *won* the election, based in no small part because of his resistance to the encroachment of governmental control.  But I wish JtB well in the pretense.  After all, I consider such illusion to be an insult to the people of Montana, and a plaintive cry for us to surrender what bravery we value most.  So, seriously, good luck with that, Jack.

Comments

[Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!]

Jumpin Jaysus, Jack! Chimpy is spending SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS on a defense budget, and jackie can't sleep at night! So, my modest question to jackie is just HOW FREAKIN' MUCH DO WE GOTTA SPEND TO MAKE little jackie feel safe???? Maybe we could station a marine by his bed at night!!...........or just get him a nightlite!

[Widowmaker]

"But just exactly when the hell did it become the government's job to protect *me*? Last time I checked, that would be ... never."

Since the dawn of this nation Wulfgar!: "provide for the common defence (sic)"

My question would be since when was it the governments job to: tell me what to eat, regulate state's school systems and strip rights for the "common good". One of the few things the constitution did state was that one of the FEW roles of the federal government was to protect us.

[Wulfgar]

No. Absolutely not. "Common defense" does not and has never meant defending me. It means 'providing for the common defense', i.e. a standing military. It did not then, nor does it now, mean the ability to spy on US citizens in the vain hope of keeping any of us safe from harm. I ask you, Widowmaker, is the CIA, FBI or NSA part of the standing military? That would be "no". They aren't.

[Widowmaker]

You are leaving me a bit confused. If the main role of the military is not to protect you as a citizen what exactly does is its goal? The military is granted by the constitution. The military has a function of protecting you as a citizen. Therefore, the government on a level protects you.

[Wulfgar]

You still haven't answered the question: Are the NSA, the FBI or the CIA part of the military?

And for the record, no. The standing military does not exist to defend me. It exists to defend the Constitution by which I swear.

[TimS]

I'm pretty sure 'common defense' refers to the nation as a whole, not individuals.

Also, the idea that the government should protect every citizen from any sort of harm seems to me an acknowledment by the proponents that they refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. Sure, the government (state and local, and federal to a limited extent) should employ a police force to aid in conflict resolution and to enforce laws, but people need to stand on their own as well.

Relying on others for all your needs will generally result in you getting the shaft when those others naturally place their own interests ahead of yours. Of course some people genuinely need help from others and it would be heartless to deny them aid.

I think, IMHO, that people just need to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities, and, if they have the means to do so, should support their fellow humans, whether that is through direct aid or by supporting government programs such as medicaid or the student loan system.