There is a cliché out there, often thrown in the face of 2A advocates, but is used for other arguments as well, that: "The Government should have a monopoly on force" Many people agree with the statement, on the surface. They don't want the bad guys and thugs and crazies using force on THEM, they want to gov't to deter them since they should have all the 'force' and be able to protect their charges. Their charges being us, Mr. And Mrs John Q. Public, and Johnny Junior. Sorta like a big protect parent that we call Uncle Sam.
And this blogger has put paid to that fallacy: Blogmonicon... with a slide show. Careful. The soundtrack is extra annoying.
Ayn Rand sort of agreed to the concept about the Gov't having a monopoly on force, but not if you look carefully. (be careful with Ayn Rand, too, as she and her followers can be dogmatically annoying as well.)
The thing wrong with the cliché is that it's too over simplified. It's just a bumper sticker slogan. The concept is accepted because it sounds good, not because it is sound, when investigated. First of all, the gov't needs to be the only 'force' game in town to enforce the law and maintain order. It doesn't mean it should constantly exercising force, certainly, but it should have no other competition, If you have 2 authorities using force you have a. war. Between 2 states or a unit breaking off from a bigger state in a civil war situation.
But the bumper sticker phrase has some validity if modified properly
Let's change it a bit shall we?
"An accountable government has a monopoly on the initiation of force."
A gov't is accountable. It represents the people that created it and works their will at their behest. The people will order and rule of law, and the gov't has to be able to enforce that by initiating force or by the threat of force. It acts as a deterrent for those that would defy the people.
This makes 'the people' a higher authority than the gov't and to them is reserved the right to initiate force against that gov't. It's how this nation was formed. It's why the 2A is there. Not for hunting or the target shooting sports.
A gov't has a monopoly on force initiation, the people don't have the right to initiate force, except against said gov't as per the 2A. That doesn't mean the individual can't exercise force. The individual can only respond to the unlawful initiation of force against him in defense, except from representatives of an accountable gov't. And individual can respond with force to a criminal using, or threatening to use, force against his life or property or the lives to those that entrust the individual to protect.
If a gov't loses it's accountability, it loses its monopoly and we have revolution and anarchy.
Now a Democracy (which we, thank Crom, are NOT) is simply a tyranny of the majority. A majority can pass a law that renders the minority outlaw and their lives forfeit. In other words, 51% of the people can vote to allow themselves to pee in the Cheerios of the losing 49%.
We are a Federal Republic, with a Constitution limiting the powers of the gov't, to prevent the powers that be from running roughshod over the inherent rights of the individual citizen.
Basic Civics stuff there. But we don't teach Civics in school anymore. We teach self-esteem and cultural equivalence and manufacture collective rights. Our economy only hums along because there is still a little time after teach all that hooey for some reading ritin and rithematic.
But for a self test, try this. Replace the word gov't in the phrase with the political party that you are not a member of and see if you like it.
"The GOP should have a monopoly on force"
"The Labor Party should have a monopoly on force"
"The Socialists should have a monopoly on force"
"The Judean Peoples Front should have a monopoly on force"
Cuz it comes down to that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, in terms of getting the original Constitution ratified. The Bill of Rights was written to mollify the individual states that they weren't being shanghaied into something grotesque or that they couldn't get remedied.
The right to bear arms, I believe, was intended to prevent the government from disarming the citizens that had just learned (by doing) how to overthrow the rule of a bad government. In this case it was England, but many were concerned that another government might turn just as bad, a couple of years down the road. So the intent was to retain enough force of arms to overthrow the US government, if the need arose.
The laws of the land and the US Constitution forbid raising arms against the government. But if enough citizens decide the government is wrong, then they have the force to break the law, and to break the government. The true tragedy that the founding fathers meant to avoid, I believe, would be to find that by depriving the citizenry of the ability to overthrow government, the government would be more likely to become the spectre of oppression that nobody wanted.
Simply, the 2nd amendment intends that we the people have the guns and force needed to break the laws if needed, and overthrow the government. Until the government becomes a tyranny to America, we have a stalemate - the citizens can't raise arms without breaking the law, the government can't take the guns away without violating the constitution (and acting as a tyrant). The 2nd amendment, to me, is one more balance of power keeping the US Government responsible, and oriented to the good of the nation.
Dear Thunderbolt,
Your understanding, and the one that most people reading the 2A understand, is what almost everyone understood right up to the 1960s. See "That All Men Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook. If you can spare some cash, I think it is a must read for anyone interested in the 2A and its application to the current situation with gun control.
Once you digest that book, and then look around at the useful idiots promoting the collective rights arguement, you will see a pattern that is, to me at least, disturbing. These same people are promoting the "living document" theory, the feel good educational fads you mentioned, and a host of other ideas that, taken as a whole would render our republic weak and defenseless. Do you think this is because they are interested in solving crime?
Regards,
PolyKahr
Post a Comment