There were a few other points I wanted to make in response to Nick's article, but I kind of felt they were secondary and didn't want to shoe horn them into an already overly long post.
Assuming for a moment that guns in the hands of citizens are neither deterrent nor defense against tyranny, what exactly is? Legislation seems to do very little, and often is the very source of tyrant's power. Constitutions are a start, but as we have seen can be eroded pretty well over the years. So what keeps a given president, say possessed by the ghost of F.D.R. from just declaring himself dictator for life? Were it not for disease, the original might well have, after all.
If you say culture and institutions, ask who or what creates and enforces those. The answer of course are the citizens themselves. But once deprived of the power to vote for a different government, what enforcement mechanism is left? What defense does the minority have against a majority in an unlimited government?
If you want to say "None; all free societies are only so at the whim of their governments," well, I might be willing to accept that on some level, but I think it still requires demonstrating then why some nations remain free while others do not, why tyranny takes hold in some and not others. Why isn't every national revolution a replay of the "one man, one vote, one time" cliche we see so frequently in the third world?
I think the answer there is that all governments require at least the tacit support of their people and their military. If no one is willing or able to resist in a meaningful way, things can just keep going on. However, if some can actually directly oppose a government, show that it is unable to enforce its will, that not only affects the power of the direct area the uprising occurs in, but also demonstrates the weakness of the government, encouraging others to stand up.
Now, meaningful resistance is a little vague, and for good reason. In India during British occupation, Ghandi's "passive resistance" was meaningful and effective, encouraging others to push out the unpopular rulers instead of simply grumbling under their breath. Now, one might argue that what worked against the rather human rights oriented British would have failed against say the Russians of the time; Ghandi probably would have wound up with a bullet in him shortly after he became a problem. But the key here is that stopping Ghandi's actions would have required killing him, a line the British were apparently unwilling to cross. Doing so would likely have seriously undermined the British citizens' support of their government, to say the least.
Considering now the case of a US tyrant, one might be able to keep order so long as one could do it with police, both local and federal. If, however, an armed uprising was too much for the normal law enforcement groups and the tyrant had to resort to calling in the National Guard or regular army, that would be a huge step, one which would put serious strain on both the order in the military (which traditionally never operates against US citizens at home) as well as eroding any support the tyrant might have among the citizenry, likely sparking further uprisings. Consider how much the 90's Waco massacre shook a lot of law and order types' (myself at the time included) faith in the government's dedication to law and order.
This is not to say that it wouldn't happen; it is quite possible that fellow Americans could distance themselves enough from those resisting to see them fully as 'the other' and not care what happens to them. However, consider how unhappy Americans were with civilian casualties in any of the wars the US has involved itself in in the past 40 years. And even if you think that say New Yorkers would be fine with the idea of nuking Dallas if Texas secedes, you have to admit that having weapons at your disposal makes any form of resistance more powerful. You can always choose to not use them and go the full passive resistance route, but it is good to have the option.
The question of why "some nations remain free" is a great one. France, often claimed to be the source of Western Republicanism is, if my memory serves, on their 5th Republic. I do not think this is divorced from their faith in Gov't solutions. By this I mean that they, more than the US, seems to have a top down belief that if they get the Gov't right the Republic and it's people will be safe. By contrast our Constitution is all about limiting the power of the Federal Gov't and spreading power between the Federal, State and Local Governments, and even ensuring that no Government has power over the people in many areas.
ReplyDeleteWhile our Constitution requires that the authorization for a standing army is required every two years, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is perpetual. Unfortunately the idea of a Militia comprised of the whole body of the people has largely disappeared from our nation. This is unfortunate because we have a huge Federal police force and a massive professional military. The States and the citizens are weaker, relative to the Federal Government, than at any time in our history. Increasingly Americans look to their Governments, especially Uncle Sam to solve their problems. This despite the inefficient and incompetent way the Government performs most tasks. All of the above makes us more vulnerable to a tyrant than at nearly anytime in our history. When the people no longer have the material wherewithal to physically resist and lack the moral fiber to passively resist, where is the counterbalance to Tyranny?
On the other hand the Administration may be just trying to cover its lack of ability to protect the citizenry with the appearance of action. An incompetent Government is so much more comforting than a power grabbing one.
I think "incompetent" and "power grabbing" are not mutually exclusive in this case. I think in the short term all organizations and groups within the government attempt to acquire more reach and power over time, but largely in a banal, short sighted manner. A little mission creep here, a few more cubicles there, etc. I don't think they actually have a huge master plan to take everything over, but just the general incentive towards bloat and growth, and this lack of planning is what keeps them from getting out to hand all at once.
ReplyDeleteLong term, however, I think this is very dangerous, in part because it is so slow. Executive power continues to accrete over time, and people don't seem to mind much because it is just a little different than it was before, if they notice at all. Likewise, until a regulatory agency does something really egregious, most people completely ignore what they are doing.
So while I think the government (perhaps all governments) tend towards tyranny over time, it is fortunately a rather slow, staggering process of blind groping and grasping, not a well planned and executed maneuver over a long period. My guess is that only the final coup to really seize control will be planned out, and will happen in a few months, start to finish. Hopefully though, that won't happen for a long time.