You had just ONE job!
Firstly, the Secret Service agents should be commended for the job that they did after shots were fired at Trump. Consistent with their training, they quickly placed themselves in harm’s way, using their own bodies as shields to protect Trump. Reports say that it was also a Secret Service anti-sniper team that quickly took out the sniper and “neutralized” the threat to Trump and others. There was a crisis (of historic proportions) and the crisis was managed.
Of course, the outcome was not “ideal.” One spectator was killed, two others were seriously injured. Considering the primary objective of protecting Trump (or any similar “protectee”), the mission was successful and the objective was met. From the perspective of an “ideal” where no harm or loss is suffered, the outcome was an abject failure.
The Secret Service is an agency of the federal government, and government generally represents management by crisis. Government has some capability and competence to respond to harmful acts (e.g. crimes) and to defend against truly existential threats (e.g. war). Government is less adept at defining and imposing “ideal” behavior (i.e. creating an environment, in which crisis does not exist and in which there is no harm, loss, or want). The “ideal” is a theoretical concept, whose practical application may be quite limited. In many cases, the much ballyhooed and sought after ideal may not even be capable of existing within our singular but imperfect reality.
It would have been better if the shooter had not been afforded the opportunity to get on that roof — to take the “high ground” — thereby posing a threat. There is a reasoned argument that no situation, event, system, or society can be made perfectly “safe,” and this is true. There are limitations on information, manpower, and resources. Similarly, government does not possess the necessary resources (e.g. omniscience, perfect wisdom, and unflinching justice), as would be necessary for government to be the arbiter of morality or to impose a perfect society via Central Planning.
It would have been more “ideal” had the individual not been motivated to kill in the first place. We do not yet know his motivations, other than the motivation to do harm and a commitment to kill (as well as a willingness to be killed). We do not know whether the assassin was politically motivated, suffering from some mental disorder, responding reflexively to societal pressures/personal suffering, or experiencing delusions of grandeur.
The most effective means of confronting evil is to go to the source of the evil. If we could “nip it in the bud,” evil would never be allowed to flourish and multiply. In the bigger picture, we cannot know the motives, objectives, capabilities, and traits of each and every individual. We are 330,000,000 persons in a complex puzzle, which is like an everchanging kaleidoscope.
Even if one could possess all of the pieces, it is impossible to complete the puzzle before new circumstances, altered variables, or modified objectives change the picture entirely. [See “Second Order Chaos System.”] Some persons and parties believe that with enough power and authority (i.e. control), THEY can complete the puzzle, but they can only do so if THEY have possession of all of the pieces. THEY also must be afforded the power and authority to prevent any change, alteration, or modification (or to change, alter, or modify the picture, environment, society, etc. to their desired and dictated specifications).
Should an individual or some limited cadre be afforded such vast power and authority, it is unlikely that their efforts would advance the “Common Good” and “General Welfare.” Political minions and technocrats crave vicarious power, and they covet the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom. We mere mortals are susceptible to the inevitably corrupting influence of unrestrained power. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
From the political classes, we are told that we must cede individual liberties and personal freedoms to the state, so that the state may be sufficiently powerful to make us “safe” and “secure.” In order to encourage conformity and compliance, government offers illusions of safety and a false sense of security; however, we are to be made safe from all but the state and secure from all but government.
Government is not a mechanism, which engenders cooperation, collaboration, compromise, or consensus. Successful cooperative action requires mutualities of commitment, contribution, and benefit. Where those mutualities exist, parties will come together voluntarily to advance their common interests, and the heavy hand of the state is superfluous and almost certainly counterproductive.
Proponents of government action seek specifically to utilize the compulsory powers of the state and the coercive powers of government to force some reluctant or nonconforming party to participate in a transaction or relationship, which the other party would not voluntarily participate (and which is likely perceived as being disadvantageous to his or her interests). In the absence of the required mutualities, however, no amount of government involvement or interference is likely to make the endeavor successful.
Government cannot “fix” all such problems. Many problems are directly related to our immutable human nature. Like nearly all organisms, our species is motivated by self-protection, self-advancement, and self-propagation. Individuals have no inherent obligation to advance the efficiencies of the state or to advance the self-serving interests of the collective (particularly when doing so is detrimental to the well-being of the individual).
Selflessness, altruism, and self-sacrifice are not among our inherent traits, and to command involuntary servitude or martyrdom is beyond the legitimate authority of the state. While “moral ideals” may be learned, through the practiced exercise of rationality and reason, which supposedly distinguish us from our lesser evolutionary cousins, we are no less a bestial species.
Government is not a panacea for all societal ills. In fact, many societal problems are of government’s own creation. In many ways, government magnifies and exacerbates the baser traits of our species through the concentration of power. It seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. It prevents the opportunity for trial-and-error, thus stifling innovation and advancement. In the end, the “solutions,” which are proposed and dictated by the state, are routinely ineffective and ultimately unsatisfying.
At its most basic, government is an instrument of brute force whereby an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) seeks to impose its self serving will upon a reluctant minority (or other disfavored individual or group). There is seldom, if ever, anything more moral or noble in the machinations of the state.
It is not a matter of having the wrong person in a specific office at a particular point in time. It is a matter of commanding of that office, government, and the state things, for which the respective institutions are ill-suited.
In seeking to impose the “ideal,” we must ask: Ideal as to whom?
Government is often sold as a win-win proposition, with the argument being, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” However, in the absence of increased efficiencies and productivity, reallocation and redistribution is merely cutting a fixed sized pie into increasingly smaller pieces, until eventually the allocated portions are not suitable or satisfying to anyone. Where disfavored “others” are commanded to pay or sacrifice without commensurate compensation or benefit, the result is institutional theft and/or involuntary servitude, both of which are beyond the legitimate authority of the state.
The success or failure of government is entirely dependent upon the role that it is assigned to play: What is its job?
Government is destined to failure if it is assigned the job (and the power) to suppress free will and to curtail freedom or independence. Government can never be an effective substitute for self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility.
Government can be somewhat effective at remedying (and to some degree preventing) affirmative harms imposed by one party against the person or property of another. In order to be actionable, however, the alleged harm must be more than theoretical and more than an offense against one’s delicate sensibilities. The harm should be demonstrable, material, and proximate to the action to be remedied or proscribed.
Does this mean that we must accept some outcomes, which are less than “ideal” (from the perspectives of some persons or parties)? Yes, it does. Does this mean that government is unable to eliminate all harms, losses, and wants? Yes, it does. Does this mean that there will be unremedied harms, unrecoverable losses, and unmet wants? Yes, it does.
Government may continue to exist in order to address actual crises, true emergencies, and legitimate existential threats. However, the limitations and shortcomings of government cannot be eliminated or overcome by living a perpetual state of crisis, by declaring “war” against all societal ills, or existing as if every moment of our lives is an emergency. In doing so, we quickly exhaust our resources and ourselves but to no avail.
It has been said, “Perfection is the enemy of good.” Incremental improvement often has a prohibitively high cost. The price of chasing the ideal is a price much to high to pay. Moreover, it is like a junkie “chasing the dragon,” and the effort is unsatisfying and ultimately self-destructive. The only way that government can possibly be “successful” at its job is to expect and command less of it — to redefine and limit its “job description.”
The only way that we can limit the destructive nature of an unrestrained state is to affirmatively limit, restrict, and restrain the powers afforded to government. Government can never be all things to all people: A government, which is capable of giving you everything that you want, is capable of taking everything that you have.
The only way that we as individuals and as a people can be more successful at life is to expect and command more of ourselves. In nearly all aspects of our everyday lives, we are exceedingly more capable of doing and providing for ourselves than any other person or party is likely to be capable (or willing) to do for us. That is OUR one job!
