Free Consultation
(801) 255-5555
Call Now
(801) 255-5555
Close
Americans grow up inside a contradiction.
Schools, politicians, and institutions repeat the same message from childhood: government protects freedom, preserves liberty, and serves the people. Reality points somewhere else entirely. Government exists first to preserve the system itself. Its central purpose does not involve protecting individuality. Its central purpose involves preserving social order, economic continuity, institutional power, and collective stability.
An individual pursues freedom.
Government pursues predictability.
An individual seeks autonomy.
Government seeks compliance.
Whenever those interests collide, government almost always protects itself first.
This does not make government uniquely evil. It makes government exactly what it has always been: a structure built to organize large populations and maintain social control. Every government on earth operates from some version of this principle. The United States simply wraps the principle in more language about liberty and independence than most nations do.
Government rewards behavior benefiting society as a whole, especially behavior strengthening economic production. Government discourages behavior creating instability, inefficiency, unpredictability, or social disruption. Individuality matters only when individuality serves broader institutional goals.
Once people understand this, many modern political contradictions suddenly make sense.
Take the interstate highway system.
Americans often view interstate highways as a public convenience project designed for ordinary citizens. In reality, interstate highways create one of the largest commercial distribution systems in human history.
Interstates allow corporations to move products rapidly across enormous distances. Interstates make centralized manufacturing possible. Interstates fuel national retail chains, large-scale warehousing, overnight shipping, and mass consumerism. Without interstate infrastructure, modern corporate distribution collapses into something far smaller and far less profitable.
Rail systems serve the same purpose.
Government pours staggering amounts of money into infrastructure because infrastructure fuels commerce. Commerce fuels tax revenue. Tax revenue fuels institutional growth and political power.
Government does not build roads primarily because citizens enjoy road trips.
Government builds roads because corporations need efficient movement of goods.
Economic production sits at the center of modern government priorities. Since the Reagan era and the rise of trickle-down economics, American government increasingly treats corporate success as synonymous with national success. Help large corporations grow, and prosperity supposedly reaches everyone else eventually.
Whether trickle-down economics succeeds remains open to debate.
What does not remain open to debate involves government preference for large-scale economic interests over individual interests. Tax policy, infrastructure spending, subsidies, regulatory structures, bailouts, zoning, labor systems, and trade policy all reveal the same pattern: institutions protecting institutions.
Government consistently prioritizes systems generating wealth, consumption, and economic expansion.
The individual citizen comes second.
DUI laws provide another revealing example.
Driving under the influence creates real danger. Innocent people die because impaired drivers make reckless decisions. Society understandably condemns drunk driving.
But government behavior surrounding DUI exposes competing institutional priorities.
If public safety truly drove every decision, government would establish a blood alcohol limit of 0.00%.
Instead, government openly permits alcohol consumption before driving while aggressively prosecuting people crossing an arbitrary legal threshold. Government simultaneously tells citizens, “You may drink before driving,” and “We will destroy your life if we decide you crossed the line.”
Because enormous economic interests depend upon alcohol consumption.
Restaurants depend upon alcohol sales. Bars depend upon alcohol sales. Sporting events, concerts, casinos, hotels, tourism industries, and entertainment venues all depend upon consumers leaving home, consuming alcohol, and spending money socially.
A true zero-tolerance system chills consumer behavior. Legislators know this. Corporations know this. Government knows this.
So government balances competing interests.
Government preserves enough freedom for economic activity while imposing severe punishment designed to satisfy public outrage and maintain the appearance of roadway safety.
Again, none of this means DUI laws lack legitimacy.
It means government does not operate from purely moral principles. Government balances economic pressure, voter emotion, political optics, institutional expansion, and social consensus all at once.
The same imbalance appears elsewhere on American roads.
Improperly secured loads kill people every year. Furniture, ladders, tools, construction materials, tires, and debris fly from trucks and trailers and create catastrophic collisions. Families die because someone fails to secure cargo properly.
Yet society rarely treats unsecured loads with anything close to the moral outrage attached to DUI offenses.
Most people never demand mandatory jail sentences for unsecured loads. Most prosecutors never pursue those cases with ideological passion. Most legislatures never campaign on aggressive anti-debris initiatives.
Because criminal law often punishes social disgust more aggressively than objective danger.
Government responds to emotional consensus. DUI generates political emotion. Unsecured cargo generally does not.
So government builds an entire enforcement industry around one while treating the other as little more than negligence.
The abortion debate reveals the same principle from another angle.
Many Americans openly distrust government competence, honesty, motives, and restraint. Those same Americans often support giving government enormous authority over intensely private medical and personal decisions.
The contradiction deserves attention.
If government cannot responsibly manage healthcare costs, education systems, infrastructure budgets, surveillance programs, or military spending, why assume government suddenly becomes wise, restrained, and morally trustworthy when dealing with abortion?
The answer usually involves social values, not institutional trust.
People frequently support government power when government power advances preferred moral outcomes.
Government becomes a weapon for enforcing social consensus.
This principle applies far beyond abortion. It appears in speech regulation, firearms policy, drug laws, education policy, religious disputes, and countless other political conflicts.
Government asks, “How do we maintain order, preserve stability, and satisfy dominant political coalitions?”
Those goals often conflict with individual liberty.
None of this requires anarchism.
None of this requires hatred toward government.
Roads matter. Courts matter. Emergency services matter. Public institutions perform many necessary functions inside a modern society.
But confusion begins when citizens start treating government like a trusted companion rather than an institution of power.
Government does not love people.
Government does not protect individuality for its own sake.
Government protects stability.
Sometimes individual rights align with stability. Sometimes they do not. Whenever tension develops between institutional preservation and personal autonomy, government almost always expands control rather than relinquishes it.
History repeatedly proves this point.
Surveillance expands during fear.
Criminal penalties expand during public outrage.
Regulations expand during crisis.
Emergency powers expand during instability.
Government rarely surrenders authority voluntarily once acquired.
The Founders understood this reality clearly. The Constitution and Bill of Rights emerge from deep suspicion of concentrated power, not blind faith in government benevolence.
Modern Americans often forget this.
A free society requires citizens willing to question power even when power claims noble intentions. Especially then.
Because government is not your friend.
Government is an institution.
And institutions protect themselves first.
