The disorder that this Globe and Mail editorial decries is part of a society that guarantees the final protection against tyranny: civilian arms.
The idea that allowing civilians to possess arms is insane and indifferent to killings is, in truth, a value judgement that better protected liberty is not worth additional disorder.
This is a value judgement that is not applied in other areas. Legal rights and due process similarly increase disorder by seeing criminals go free on rights violations. Yet, we tolerate this disorder knowing that legal rights and due process protect the liberty of the innocent. And we value the liberty of the innocent more than increased order.
So why permit disorder for legal rights and due process but not guns? The assumption is that Western liberal-democratic states can be entrused to protect liberty but that they could never turn tyrannical and deny it. The idea that liberal democratic states will never stop being liberal reflects an obedience to authority that is far scarier than the American willingness to let the people, not just the rulers, be armed.
9 comments:
Do you honestly believe that an armed citizenry would defeat a modern military equipped with nuclear weapons, drones, and special ops? That is absurd.
A more plausible argument for gun rights, I suppose, is that it is useful to hunters. But the idea that guns somehow protect the citizenry from tyranny is laughable.
Yes. It's very hard, even today, to put down an armed citizenry. See, for example, the uprising against Gaddafi in Libya.
Even if it were absurd, why would you make oppression easier? Or, in the final analysis, is liberty not that important?
Also, guns are not only valuable in the case of overthrowing states. Much more relevantly, they're valuable in securing rights against states. In recent Canadian history, natives at Oka used arms to change the debate around land-claims, which are now taken far more seriously.
The Libyans had help from NATO, which is why they were able to defeat Gaddafi. NATO, in turn, is a modern military.
Again, let me reiterate: you cannot defeat a modern military with just guns.
The Oka standoff is not remembered for the Mohawks' use of arms. However, you are right: the Mohawks stood up for their rights against a totalitarian claim to their land.
(P.S. I never said liberty is not important. What I was questioning is your ridiculous proposition that an armed citizenry would defeat a modern totalitarian regime.)
Guns did work in Libya. By themselves they weren't enough, but they weren't enough for the Americans in 1776 either. In both cases, an armed citizenry was the catalyst. NATO provided air support to the Libyans much as French navy provided naval support to the Americans. Without guns, it's likely the Libyans would have gotten as far as the Egyptians: no where.
Whether or not Oka is remembered for guns is irrelevant.
Your point is that increased order today is worth restricting liberty on firearms because they can't by themselves overthrow a modern military. I don't find this compelling because civilians arms are an essential part of any revolt and revolts clearly still work to this day. In fact, the reason people want guns restricted is the very reason they work in rebellions: they kill people. Moreover, they aren't just useful to full on rebellions. As Canadian natives show, they work for denied rights claims as well.
(As an aside, Canada is a liberal democracy. It did not become "totalitarian" when the Oka land-claim was initially denied. Liberal states don't become totalitarian because of incorrect decisions.)
Also, reading your post on left-libertarianism, it speaks to my final paragraph. You trust the state, in the final analysis, to protect liberty. This, in large part, is because you need it to redistribute wealth. You're basically risking the final guarantee of civil, political, and economic liberty for the redistributive function of the state. Now, I know you don't support economic liberty, but you're sacrificing an important guarantee of civil and political liberty -- which you do like -- for economic equality via the state. In other words, in the final analysis, you place a higher value on economic equality than civil and political liberty.
Michael, this is absolutely absurd. The Libyan government under Gaddafi had the stricter gun control measures than Canada. So under your assumptions, we should allow stronger gun control if we are to defeat tyrannical governments.
Of course, the fact is that the Libyan conflict was heavily dependent on support from NATO. The Libyan people by themselves would have stood little chance against Mr. Gaddafi.
Actually, I have said nothing about my position on gun rights. You have wrongly imputed my position based on my statements. Furthermore, I never said Canada is totalitarian, but the rather that its claim to Mohawk land was - that is an important distinction. :)
Finally, left libertarians do NOT trust the state at all. You need to read your Kropotkin, Proudhoun and Bakunin since you do not appear to understand left libertarianism very well. In this philosophical tradition, the state is viewed as a limit on true freedom.
Your points are disingenuous, non-sequiturs, or meant to provoke. I have no replies.
Post a Comment