| « | The Terrible "Ifs" |
»
|
|
Monday, March 21, 2005
Fear Of Equalizers
Quite a lot of conservatives -- even a few hard-core libertarians -- are squeamish about the right to keep and bear arms. One very bright fellow of your Curmudgeon's acquaintance opined that "rudeness ought not to incur the death penalty," implying that he would expect a wave of homicide in the streets were the tradition of bearing firearms in public to be renewed. Another wanted to know what would become of peaceful public places such as supermarkets and movie theaters, should the hips of citizens be decorated with weapons once more. Granted that cell phone users can be very annoying, he said, surely they deserve no more than a broken arm, at worst.
At least one doesn't hear the old private-nuclear-weapon chestnut too often, these days. But anyway, even a lot of staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights and its philosophical premises appear comfortable with empowering the State to decide:
- Who shall be allowed to own and carry weapons, and:
- What weapons shall be deemed acceptable in private hands.
Why? Why should the State, which institution has more bloodshed to its credit in a single century than private parties have amassed down all the ages of Man, have the power to decree some men and some weapons licit while others are not? How can the State, which ceaselessly strives to increase its power over the individual, justify forbidding the individual to arm himself against both State excesses and private predations? And how can anyone who understands the immense danger the State poses to human well-being bless its usurpation of this all-important privilege?
In For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard asked the question in a de novo setting. Imagine, he proposed, that we were dropped to Earth without any history at all, and chose to form a State for some set of perceived collective purposes. Regardless of how that State were organized, would anyone deem it wise to allow it an unchallengeable preponderance of coercive force, such that its subjects would be incapable of resisting it at need?
Other thinkers have approached the matter from a historical perspective. In every instance where the State has disarmed its subjects, they note, massive oppression and slaughter have followed. Therefore, if we draw the lessons from these episodes, we are well advised to allow the State no such authority. Indeed, it just might be best to forbid the agents of the State and only them to wield firearms.
Both arguments are cogent and on point. But substantial numbers of solid conservatives profess to be unconvinced. Why?
It might have something to do with economics.
The politically engaged tend to be among America's better off. Conservatives in particular often feel they have a lot to defend. In the main, they've worked hard for what they have, and justifiably feel that they deserve it and deserve to keep it. If our typical conservative, Smith, senses some sort of threat to his position and holdings, from where would it emanate, and what form would it take?
Most violence and crime against property takes place in a relatively small sector of the country: the heavily populated urban areas and their nearest, densest suburbs. Smith is highly unlikely to live in such a locale, preferring the greater safety and gentility of the outer suburbs or rural America. Therefore, he's unlikely to be too often aware of his vulnerability to personal attack. Nor will he think of his home as a probable target for plunderers.
However, Smith hears the stories, as do we all. He hears about the plagues of gunfire and gang warfare on the evening news; he simply can't get away from them and remain reasonably well informed. So the "threat" posed by firearms, which the Old Media have promoted ceaselessly since 1965, will appear linked to forces which, were they to impinge upon his life, would have the aspect of an invading army, albeit one that wears no uniforms and flies no banners.
Given this sense of a potential but distant threat, Smith would prefer to see it kept at bay by "professionals": the police and armed forces. Economically, it makes more sense to him; a citizen militia would cut too deeply into his time and the walk-in trade at his place of business. Besides, defending the borders is what government is for, isn't it?
Another economic vantage arises from the comparative theory of wealth: that Smith regards himself as wealthy only because he has more than most others. If those others are poised at his gates, and might just be contemplating the redistribution of his wealth, he'd rather wrap himself around his property than take up arms to repel them. It will be infinitely easier for "the authorities" to protect him and his if no one else is permitted a firearm; it will make their targets easier to spot.
These are natural reactions to the asymmetric state of affairs that prevails in American society at this time. In a way, they're the class-warfare angle to the right to keep and bear arms, which its proponents would prefer to see as class-independent. In truth, the whole country would benefit were we to go back to being a gun-toting people. Widespread availability of firearms under the widest conceivable array of circumstances would put ordinary citizens on an equal plane with the predators that prowl among us. Beyond that, it would put us at each other's disposal; citizens are far more likely to come to one another's aid when they're armed. Finally, the heightened prospects for any insurrection that might arise would have a sobering effect on our political class. It's just hard to see that picture when one is consumed by the more lurid fears described above.
Instead, folks who ought to know better divert the conversation to strawmen such as the nuclear-weapon conundrum. Others harp on the militia clause to the Second Amendment, which was understood as explanatory rather than restrictive when written and hasn't changed since.
It's hard enough dealing with the hardcore statists. Your Curmudgeon wishes those who claim to stand with us on principle could dispel the phantoms from their vision.
Comments
Fran, as I’m sure you realize, one of the bigger problems with “letting the police do it” is that they cannot be expected to protect everyone all the time. There are simply too few to permit 24/7 coverage of all citizens.
Lawbreakers, while perhaps statistically somewhat below average intellectually, still have sufficient reasoning power to commit crimes when the authorities are elsewhere. Thus, police can be mostly expected to deal with crime after the fact. This is generally inconvenient and can be seriously fatal for the victim.
This would suggest that some means of providing something approximating around-the-clock protection for potential victims would be a serious hinderance for criminals. While by no means perfect, personal sidearms could be sufficiently effective for this purpose as to make violent crime less attractive.
Another factor that seems to me to be reasonable is that personal sidearms would be more likely to actively promote a more polite and less contentious society, given the potential for serious consequences for uncontrolled disputation.
Finally, consider the prospects that terrorists could effectively conduct highjackings or other personal force operations in an armed society. A single armed marshall on an aircraft can be effectively neutralized. A hundred or more potentially armed passengers are a more difficult prospect. And it sure would speed up airport processing. This does not, of course, rule out nucs, dirty nucs, chemical or biological agents or truck bombs.
Posted by on 03/21/2005 at 05:47 PMIf they feel sufficiently well-connected that they imagine the police would protect them from imminent physical harm, I wonder why they’d be against any other kind of state supremacy. In other words, why call themselves “conservative” at all?
Posted by Matt on 03/22/2005 at 02:05 AMI have urged for years that politicians calling for disarmament be asked to pledge to rely solely on calling 911 for their personal and official safety.
Posted by on 03/23/2005 at 05:22 PMThere do have to be *some* limits on personal weapons. The nuclear weapon chestnut is a real problem for pure libertarian ideas.
An extreme example shows that there must be limits, then the argument shifts to just where to set those limits.
If everyone had access to a $20 device that could destroy the universe, how long would the human race survive, given the frequency of murder-suicides?
Personal weapons ownership rules have to be based on how many people will be killed before the user can be stopped. It’s just another issue of balance between freedom and safety.
Posted by on 03/24/2005 at 12:40 AMThat kid new he was not going to be opposed. In a disarmed society, the one gun man is king.
Posted by on 03/24/2005 at 01:16 AM
