The recent attempts on former President Donald Trump’s life have sparked concerns about political violence and the normalization of such acts in American society. It’s been no secret that over the past few election cycles the polarization and divisive rhetoric has ramped up. But with multiple assassination attempts on a leading presidential candidate, it’s worth noting that the political establishment doesn’t appear to be interested in quelling the issues that have led to these acts but relishing in them instead.
Of course, these events can be analyzed through the lens of individual rights, property, and the consequences of government intervention. When government officials, such as politicians or law enforcement, engage in aggressive and violent behavior or promote divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, they create an environment conducive to political extremism and violence. In this context, the attempts on Trump’s life can be seen as a total manifestation of the destructive consequences of government overreach, intervention, and the erosion of individual rights.
The non-aggression principle (NAP), a central concept in libertarian philosophy, offers an answer here simply by emphasizing the prohibition of aggression against individuals or their property. Unfortunately, most of our government officials hold a monopoly on violence, whether implied or literal, and their forms of coercion know no bounds. When aggression and violence become the norm to twist citizens into compliance, it doesn’t just trickle down from the top; it permeates all of society, especially when cheered on by “the adults in the room.”
Government policies and actions have not only contributed to the escalation of political tensions and violence, especially in a day and age where information moves both quickly and freely, but appear to have encouraged them. In the case of Trump’s assassination attempts, the intense political polarization and rhetoric surrounding his presidency, from government officials to nightly news reports, has created an environment in which some individuals feel justified in taking violent action. Their actions are generally only half-heartedly rebuked, many times by those same officials and politicians that have used carefully coded language to further encourage and fan the flames of division.
The government’s role in promoting this division and aggression rather than promoting peaceful coexistence and respect for individual rights has contributed to this toxic atmosphere, and its consequences are dire. If we normalize political violence and violent rhetoric, we become less free as a society, a place where political candidates and supporters both may have to live in fear of retribution from their opponents, merely for disagreeing with them.
Further, the Secret Service’s response to the assassination attempts highlights the limitations and potential failures of government protection. While the Secret Service’s actions ultimately helped usher Trump out of harm’s way, the incidents also raise questions about the agency’s competence and preparedness. Government agencies, including the Secret Service, are inherently prone to errors and inefficiencies due to their bureaucratic nature and lack of market incentives, and these errors seem to lead to a pattern of exploitation, ripe for political violence.
In contrast, private security measures, such as those employed by Trump himself, demonstrate the effectiveness of market-based solutions. Trump’s private security detail, which includes trained professionals and advanced technology, has proven capable of responding quickly and effectively to threats. This highlights the importance of private security in supplementing or even replacing government-provided protection.
The multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump’s life serve as a warning about the dangers of political polarization, government overreach, and the erosion of individual rights. By acknowledging the limitations of government protection, limiting government intervention, and promoting peaceful coexistence, we can work towards a more peaceful, more free, and more secure society where individual rights and freedoms are both respected and protected.
