« A Struggle for Power and Money | Main | Doing Without the UN »
June 22, 2005
Guns in Society
Daniel Nexon at the Duck of Minerva disagrees with my claims that it is the right of the Zimbabwean people to be armed against their government and to resist it with force. Daniel's is an excellent post, and you should read it. However, I would like to note that the if one takes up arms in self-defense, it is not the defender who has created the "state of war", but the attacker. The defender has merely recognized the state exists and taken reasonable action to survive under those conditions.
The decision to defend one's self, loved ones and property is not the least problematic. It is the decision to take up arms (within the context of society) as an aggressive means that is problematic. This is why vigilantism is so worrisome: it is a sign that the citizens do not trust the rule of law on the matter at hand. And taking up vigilantism is problematic, because it means that you are acting outside the law. Even correct action outside the law can be corrosive to society, and should only be done in extreme circumstances.
The key is taking responsibility for one's actions within society.
But in the case where the government takes up arms against a subset of its people, it is certainly the people's right to defend themselves against that government. Otherwise, the entire founding basis of liberal political thought - that the government exists to serve the people - is worthless, and tyranny of a more or less benign nature (and no, you don't get to choose) is inevitable.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/239
Comments
Quick note: I don't disagree that the Zimbabweans have a right to take up arms against their government. They sure do. Rather, I don't think that a universal right to bears arms would be a check on genocide.
Posted by: Dan Nexon at June 22, 2005 2:59 PM
PS: thanks for the kind words. Civil, even if heated, disagreement is what makes this whole game worthwhile.
Posted by: Dan Nexon at June 22, 2005 3:00 PM
Oh, I certainly agree that a universal right to bear arms would be a universal check on genocide. I do think that it would stop, or slow, or deter the vast majority of genocides and democides, though.
And yes, civil disagreement is how we move forward as a society. Sadly, most of what happens in public is heated demagoguery and blatant partisan bickering. But it's nice to find civil debate for a change.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 22, 2005 3:11 PM