What if the Jeffersonians were too optimistic about armed citizens?
- From: riprock <riprock.adres.nl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:20:57 -0700
The Jeffersonians who instigated the War for Independence (of America
from Britain) had a notion of the armed citizen which was adapted from
English libertarians who had adapted it from Machiavelli -- who was
looking back to ancient Greece.
The notion was that an armed citizen would be in a position to have
economic, reproductive, and security independence. For a time it
seemed that Western Civilization was uniquely favored by Providence to
recognize that a citizen without personal weapons is a slave.
The American rebels (or freedom fighters) against Britain were blessed
with deep trust of their comrades. (In the case of the suppression of
the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington's trust of his Masonic fellows may
have been ill-founded, and his trust of his lower-class citizens may
have been inadequate.)
Nowadays, those citizens of Western countries who manage to obtain
firearms often do not have steady jobs, families, or the possibility
to own and develop land. What good does it do them to be independent
in terms of security if everything will vanish when they die? Does it
matter that they have theoretical freedom to associate if a
hoplophobic culture makes them outcasts without the practical power to
form associations?
Some Jeffersonians do indeed have every aspect of their lives under
control -- financial, familial, etc. -- but they are few. Will they
be able to build a new society without the help of many others in less
fortunate circumstances? Will they be able to inspire the trust of
their fellows?
The Jeffersonian notion of an armed citizen as the fundamental
building block of a free republic may very well be doomed by economic
factors. (This is not to predict that the notion -- and the
corresponding Jeffersonian individuals -- will go gently into
history's dustbin. If anything can be safely predicted to rage
against the dying of the light, it is an armed Jeffersonian with no
hope for the future.)
Modern Jeffersonians generally agree on the desirability of gold and
silver money, although some of them favor fiat currency along the
lines discussed by Benjamin Franklin. Currency systems are important,
but they are not enough to update the role of the armed agrarian
citizen for the modern age.
Even though America's Founders were epitomes of the Jeffersonian way
of life, America lost its moral bearings and degenerated just as they
feared it would. Even though Washington said that guns created an
atmosphere of moral virtue, America managed to decay morally before
its government disarmed its citizens. (Possibly the rot started in
the corridors of power and did not spread to the wider populace until
the 20th century -- but probably the Founders were exceptionally
Jeffersonian and the majority of the people never dedicated themselves
to Jeffersonian ideology as a way of life.)
Arming oneself is often an impractical and symbolic act, by which the
armed citizen avers and affirms a particularly Jeffersonian view of
liberty. If the act of arming oneself becomes too onerous in Western
societies, the torch of liberty may pass to non-Western hands.
One thing seems certain. Even if every Western society renounces the
ideals of the citizen who arms himself without requiring the sanction
of his government, humans on Planet Earth will continue to arm
themselves, with and without the sanction of governments. In non-
Western nations become the only nations who trust their citizens to
arm themselves, then those non-Western nations will have become the
sole inheritors of Jefferson's notion of liberty.
Vin Suprynowicz writes about Omani citizens bringing loaded rifles to
a lawsuit:
[quote]
But near the front of the chaplain's book is printed a large color
photograph of men sitting on the floor waiting to take their cases
before the local magistrate ... who sits on the floor with them. The
magistrate has to be identified in the caption as "third from right."
His clothing does not immediately give evidence of any exalted rank.
He is not surrounded by clerks, transcriptionists, or law books. He
does not sit symbolically elevated behind a bench. As he listens to
the cases, all he holds in his hand is a fan to deal with the heat.
Clad in white robes and headgear typical of the Bedouin, the men who
sit on the floor next to him, their backs to the wall, waiting their
turn to present their cases, do hold something in their hands,
however.
Name me one courthouse in America where an unarmed judge sits within
arm's reach of his constituents, unafraid, as they sit waiting to
speak with him on volatile matters, holding propped in their laps
their well-maintained and presumably fully loaded Model 4 Enfield
rifles.
The first necessity of freedom is that we trust each other.
[/quote]
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz16.html
If the non-Western societies can foster trust and an armed citizenry,
they may be more Jeffersonian than the most fervently Jeffersonian
Americans.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Our President does not now care that Gonzales has resigned
- Next by Date: You're ( the VP's office) is trying to cover up those FISA violations. Don't. They're setting you up like they did Rove and Gonzalez. They know. You'll perjure yourselves.
- Previous by thread: Our President does not now care that Gonzales has resigned
- Next by thread: Re: What if the Jeffersonians were too optimistic about armed citizens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
