Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> "The Problem" that Carlos very well described, is a problem afflicting
> the whole society. Something is very wrong in a region where citizens
> *must* go around armed all the time. Peace and reasonable security are
> absolute requirements for wealth creation.
As Hobbes said: "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force,
is always void. For no man can transfer, or lay down his Right to save
himself from Death."
Or as John Locke said: "Whosoever uses force without Right .. puts
himself into a state of war with those, against whom he so uses it, and
in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and
every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the agressor....
Private persons have a right to defend themselves and recover by force
what by unlawful force is taken from them."
or as Sir William Blackstone (the British jurist who figures so
prominently in the history of common law, and author of 'Commentaries on
the Laws of England'(4 vols, 1755-9)): "In a land of liberty, it is
extremely dangerous to make a distinct order of the profession of
arms... No man should take up arms, but with a veiw to defend his
country and its laws; he puts not off the citizen when he enters the
camp." He also said,"The fifth and last auxilliary right of the subject,
that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their
defence... of the natural rights of resistance and self preservation,
when the sanctions of society and the laws are found insufficient to
restrain the violence of oppression."
Note that early police forces were not permitted to be armed, they were
required to depend upon armed citizens to provide backup. The first gun
control laws in England in the 19th century did not apply to civilians
at all, only to police forces.
Being armed is a responsibility of citizenship, and as to free market
republican society, Adam Smith said, "Men of Republican principles have
been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty... the standing
army of Ceasar destroyd the Roman Republic as that of Cromwell turned
the Long Parliament out of doors."
As that rabble rouser of liberty, Thomase Paine said, "The peaceable
part of mankind shall be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned
while the neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a
good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws
discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve
order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the
scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some WILL not,
others DARE not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one
half of the world deprived of the use of them;... the weak will become
prey to the strong."
You do not achieve 'peace and reasonable security' by laying down your
last means of defence, nor do you ensure tyrannies, petty and vast, come
not to fruition by depriving yourself while arming only those you
empower to lead and guard you.
Note that where the individual is armed, confiscatory forces that
deprive economic prosperity do not show any strength. Tooting the horn
of my state, we have the second highest per capita income, with the
lowest unemployment along with one of the highest gun ownership rates
(and one of the lowest crime rates), and one of the lowest tax rates,
and one of the highest economic growth rates. These are not
coincidences.
The problems of Brazil and Argentina are not of an armed populace, but a
failure of an attempt to privatize their economies. Instead, they have
become just two more petty mercantilist economies, which treat social
programs as merely bribes to keep the masses at bay. Only by arming the
population as a whole can a just resolution to these crises be
developed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:10 MDT