The State Will Not Protect You

The state offers protection

This year people the world over are clamoring for their governments to save them. Cries for help against a novel coronavirus ring out despite the state’s shameful history of complete disregard for the health of it’s people. The citizenry pleas with the state to end police brutality or austerity or ending lockdowns though they propose no end to the state itself. Predictably, the results have been absolutely disastrous as the economic and social fabric unravels around us.

It is not prudent to continue to petition the state for protection. The state has no legal obligation to protect the public and when coupled with an age old pattern of total disregard for health and safety it becomes clear that an alternative is needed.

Protect and Serve

The state, law enforcement in particular, does not have any duty to protect the public. This isn’t a personally held belief or fringe legal theory. This has been upheld in court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, numerous times in the last forty-five years.

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975 roommates Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro were awoken to the sounds of the back door of their apartment building being broken down. Soon after, the two women heard the screams of their female neighbor from the floor below and Warren called 911. The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters took the call and dispatched officers to the scene. Police arrived ten minutes later. The two women observed the scene from the rooftop of an adjoining building and saw one officer drive by without even getting out of his car while another knocked on the front door and left when he didn’t get an answer.

The two women returned to their apartment and could still hear their neighbor’s screams and called the police again. The dispatcher assured them that more officers would be dispatched but help never arrived. Soon after the call Warren and Taliaferro went down to their neighbor’s apartment believing that the police had arrived. En route they encountered the burglars, Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men forced the women into the apartment at knifepoint and proceeded to rape and assault the three women for the next fourteen hours.

After the horrible ordeal the three women filed claims against the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department for the dispatcher’s failure to properly forward the first call with the proper urgency, the responding officer’s failure to follow investigative procedures properly, and the failure of the dispatcher to dispatch officers after the second call.

In a separate incident in April 1978, Wilfred Nichol was assaulted in the streets of D.C. When an officer arrived on the scene he had the opportunity to obtain the identities of the assailants but failed to do so, leaving Nichol unable to press charges. Nichol would go on to bring a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the District of Columbia.

In 1981 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision against the three women and Nichol. The decision read in part:

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection…This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Fast forward to 1989 and we see a similar ruling coming from the U.S. Supreme Court in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services where the state was cleared of negligence for failing to help a young boy being abused by his father. Again in Castle Rock v. Gonzales the state was let off even though their failure to enforce a restraining order led to the death of three little girls. When Joseph Lotizo tried to sue NYPD in 2012 because an officer hid while Lotizo was being stabbed the case was dismissed, the judge claiming that the officer had no duty to protect Lotizo.

The precedent has clearly been set that the state doesn’t have an obligation to protect the public. It is unreasonable to expect all crime to be solved or that human error would never enter into the equation but the courts have concluded that the public is on it’s own.

The Source of Violence

Democide, death by government, claimed hundreds of millions of lives in the twentieth century. It took many more before then and continues to take them now in myriad ways. Throughout history it has been the case that the state creates violence, it does not stop it.

Across the globe governments play an active role in terrorizing the public by conducting false flag operations. After World War II NATO and the CIA created ‘stay-behind-armies’ in Europe who’s mission, in part, was to carry out terrorist attacks to prevent communist influence from encroaching on the continent, which they did many times. During the Cold War the Department of Defense suggested that the government carry out terrorist attacks which they could blame on Cuba in order to justify going to war as part of Operation Northwoods. In July of 2001, police in Genoa, Italy admitted to planting Molotov cocktails and faked a stabbing to justify a crackdown on people protesting the G8 summit being hosted in the city.

While many false flag attacks serve their purpose simply by terrifying the public or pushing an agenda (E.g. gun control or increased surveillance) others are meant to lead to death and destruction on an even greater scale. In 1939 the Russian military bombed the Russian town of Mainila near the Finnish border, blamed the act on on Finland, and then launched The Winter War against Finland four days later. The infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the NSA manipulated data to make it appear as if a North Vietnamese boat had fired upon an American ship, led of course to the Vietnam War. In the hours after the 9/11 attacks the government had it’s sights set on Iraq and would go on to manufacture consent through the false flag Anthrax attacks and the mythical WMDs and eventually they got their war.

Beyond warfare the government continuously shows serious negligence and disinterest when it comes to protecting the public. We watch as 5G technology rolls out with government approval despite no safety studies on human health being conducted; Operation Warp Speed will allow for secretive and experimental medical technologies to be tested on the public; the CIA has been a major drug trafficking organization for decades; children in the government’s custody disappear and become sex trafficked by the thousands; men like Jimmy Savile sexually abuse children as a matter of habit and it is their connections to people in high places that actually allow these actions to go unpunished.

There is an obvious trend of the state acting against the best interest of humanity.


The state’s ability to interfere with public safety diminishes as soon as individuals take matters into their own hands. Self-defense skills have always been highly prized as they equip the individual with the necessary abilities to look after themselves. This takes the burden off of other people, the state included, to look after them.

As these competencies develop one can use them to look after others and eventually teach them. When enough like-minded, well-trained people have these skills they can form larger networks with the aim of protecting larger groups of people. Neighborhood watches might form for example. Private defense groups can also be contracted, with much more transparency and accountability than the state’s law enforcement, to look after neighborhoods, towns, businesses, cities, and anywhere people need protecting.

The more this private sector grows the more opportunities there are for people in the state’s employ to leave their current situation. This is wildly important since the goal is not to demonize entire institutions as they are comprised of many good individuals with important skills. One doesn’t have to look far to find stories of kindness and heroism at the hands of police officers, military, or state-run hospital staff.

The state and its servants have repeated shown they are not capable of or interested in protecting us. It has always been the case that individuals are best-suited for protecting themselves, their loved ones, their homes, and their communities. By taking steps towards self-sufficiency we can watch as the state fades away and a more peaceful union takes its place.



Thank you for reading. If you wish to support What About The Roads please consider subscribing to our Patreon, Subscribestar, or send us an email with other ways to donate. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *