False, even if one where to concede the part before your "consequently".
"The situation [ESR] promotes" is one of LEGAL ownership of firearms by
law-abiding citizens. The fact that some civilians own firearms is an
absolutely inevitable fact -- not even the most repressive and intrusive
government in the poorest, most-deprived country in the world has ever
been able to stop THAT since technology made firearms cheap & light
enough (note this doesn't cover the historical period where Japan, for
a while, did manage to wipe firearms off their islands -- including
their use by governments / armies / etc, of course). Therefore, the
possibility that some civilians WILL use firearms to achieve their aims
must be taken as an absolute given under present circumstances. The
trade-off on which ESR and I do disagree is between the somewhat more
limited availability [to anybody, including criminals] promoted by
gun-control measures, and the wider availability _to law-abiding
citizens_ promoted if gun-control measures are weaker/laxer; in any
case, ESR's (and Hayek's, and Mao's, ...
"ultimate foundation of
power" in terms of potential for violence is undisputable.
You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
tired of this and just shoot me.
Good point. More significant, perhaps, why talk of individuals when
"MOB" action is quite a possibility? Half a dozen policemen may well
be able to take to prison a single individual who's resisting arrest
when, say, sticks and stones represent the upper limit for everybody's
armament -- but who's to say we're talking of a SINGLE individual?
Doesn't he have friends, relatives, people who agree with his ideas,
willing to pelt the police with said stones? How many policemen can
the state field against the mob? It's unusual that the numbers can
be SO much in favour of the police that the mob can be dispersed or
arrested without weapon use *or threat*. Besides, individuals today
possess powerful, dangerous weapons known as CARS -- even though
direct use of cars as weapons is unusual, filling bottles with gas
and setting them on fire before throwing them at the police is quite
common. Are you going to ban cars to avoid this possibility?
In the end it does come down to (at the very least the possibility
or threat of) military confrontation. If the weapons available to
both sides, government and protesters, are somehow equalized (be it
down to sticks & stones, midway to "Molotov cocktails" and teargas,
or up to firearms on both sides), the government can prevail (in
the actual or potential "civil war" acts we're talking about) if,
and only if, they can field superior military power _anyway_ -- e.g.
through better training, organization, logistics (mobility of
forces to concentrate on points of clash), and the like.
Again, I suspect these are very theoretical possibilities for most
discussants. People who were in Bologna in 1976, on the other hand,
have witnessed these issues first-hand: with the "mob" of protesters
having nearly taken over the city, the government acted rapidly and
decisively by sending in the armed forces, with abundant tanks to
occupy and hold the city's key strategic points. In this way, it
was made militarily indifferent that the protesters had gained a
substantial amount of small arms by raiding shops, barracks etc;
none of those pistols &c were, obviously, any match for the tanks'
armour, guns and machine-guns -- to the point that *not one single
shot had to be fired* from those tanks' main guns in order for the
army to take the city... the psychological effect of the govt's
clear determination to do whatever it could take was enough. Even
though at the time I had (and in a sense still have) lots of
sympathy with the protesters' reasons (basically, the police had
shot and killed in cold blood a student who was loudly protesting,
and probably [this will never be proved either way] had thrown a
stone or two at the police -- the news of this murder inflamed the
full-fledged revolt which immediately followed), I _am_ admired at
the way the government managed to restore calm without any more
deaths on either side after that "triggering" one. Overwhelming
military force may not need to be USED, if it IS overwhelming in
an obvious-enough way to scare the shit out of the enemy (it DOES
depend on the enemy's motivations, of course -- make him bitter
enough and he won't be scare-able any more). Apparently, the role
of military preponderance in establishing the state's authority
can in fact be "deep" enough to become NON-obvious to otherwise
bright and perceptive people!-)
Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
not involve a gun, if you insisted.
Just get a crowd of friends and little imagination will be required.
But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to
I fully agree (and I'm pretty sure Hayek expressed himself quite
similarly, though, darn it, I can't find a relevant URL).
try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
a bit of a reach.
I don't agree about the "bit of a reach": again, I suspect that having
lived in Italy most of my life (and being in Bologna in particular in
1976) is what makes a difference -- what's theoretical to you guys is
obviously true to me because of real-life experiences.
Alex
