Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 May 1999 11:42:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
953 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi again,
Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > Now here's where we part ways, Chris. Are you
> > aware of how armies were levied in the British model
> > during the eighteenth century? There wasn't a standing
> > army of any size during peacetime--levies from the
> > countryside were vital for colonial defence. In Britain
> > itself, the settlement of 1689 prohibited a standing
> > army without the annual consent of Parliament--on
> > an island, it just wasn't necessary, when a reserve
> > could be raised on very short notice and armies moved
> > ten miles a day on the average.
>
> But, the people of the colonies and the people of Britain had different
> worries. I don't want to get into a historical debate, because I am
> simply not equipped to do so...I mean I'm ignorant in comparison to you.
> (unless you're making stuff up ;-)
I try only to make stuff up when it's inconsequential. ;)
My "field" isn't early US/18th C. Britain, it's later, so
all I have is ancillary knowledge and methodological
things.
I'm in agreement with the "they had different worries"
statement--but only to a point. I don't think New York
worries were that different from Liverpudlian ones. The
frontier was a different story altogether, though.
> > The idea of inside
> > domination was rather silly--if the Framers were so
> > very worried about preventing police states and
> > oppressive central governments, why on Earth did
> > they extol the virtues of France and accept its aid
> > when Louis XVI was about as absolutist a monarch
> > and France about as strongly centralized a police
> > state as could ever exist? The answer is that they
> > trusted in reason and responsible government--not
> > the prospect of needing to take up arms against it.
>
> I think they just needed the help. I also think that you are wrong to
> some extent. I don't have the Federalist papers in front of me, but I
> recall some good self-government paranoia being exhibited therein. I do
> have some quotes from Jefferson (admittedly only one of the great
> thinkers involved) on the matter of Rebellion:
>
> "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
> necessary in the political world...[and] is a medicine necessary for the
> sound health of government." (From a letter to James Madison, 30 Jan, 1787.)
>
> "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion (Shay's,
> I think)...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with
> the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is the natural manure." (From a
> letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 Nov, 1787)
Jefferson was an odd bird. Revolts were common in
Europe until the end of the 18th century--riots, unrest,
and so forth. The world wasn't a placid place by any
means! I'll have to look at the Shay's Rebellion stuff
again--it's rather interesting.
The Federalist arguments were state versus central ones,
not "tyrannical US government versus individuals" ones.
It was competing levels of government, a holdover of the
pre-Revolutionary colonial structure that had a vested
interest in maintaining itself. It did so rather nicely in the
Articles of Confederation--but that failed miserably, so
another try was in order. As I've written in another message,
I'm of the mind that much of the Bill of Rights's intent was
to mollify the states.
> > As to the freak-out point of weapons of mass
> > destruction, that's a gross distortion of the intent
> > of the Second Amendment, not to mention any
>
> I still disagree. My reading suggests that the real point was to ensure
> that the people were armed such that they could throw off the yoke of an
> oppressive tyranny. Thus, it is my opinion (and I believe theirs) that
> the people must have access to arms equal to those of the government.
But who are "the people?" Jefferson and Co. meant "white
male property owners," but didn't say it because it didn't need
to be said in a patriarchal society. Are we to revert to their
definition of people as well? And equality in quantity or quality?
Or both? It wasn't much of an issue until the late 19th century,
granted.
> > possible reading of it--in the early United States,
> > for example, people could own small arms but
> > owning *cannon* was not only rare but alarming!
>
> OK, I simply don't have any accounts of this. I was under the
> impression that the war of 1812 was won (or at least endured) because of
> lots of merchant ships that were armed with cannon. If I'm not wrong in
> this recollection, then it can't have been too awfully rare.
You're right. These were privateers who sailed
under letters of marque from the United States,
and they usually bought their cannon for that purpose.
Some did have small weapons beforehand, but that's
entirely a device of the context--piracy was a real
fear in a way it isn't today! I'm not sure how it was
handled, but I believe most harbor masters made a
record of how many guns each ship carried. Not
all carried guns--after all, where did the privateers'
victims come from, if everyone was so armed? :)
This became much less common as the 19th century
wore on, in part because of regulation that snuffed
out piracy. You can see echoes of it in ships like
_Great Eastern_ (1872, I think) that had faux gunports
for decoration.
And...cannon on a ship are different than cannon in
your barn. The weapon itself might be the same,
but the justification is different.
> > Weapons of "mass destruction" (a strange term
> > to try and apply to the 18th and 19th centuries)
>
> Right. I agree that it doesn't 'translate' perfectly.
It doesn't translate at all!
> > were kept in reserve at artillery parks or armories,
> > just as they are today, and issued to the militia
> > at the time of mobilization. Had the right to bear
>
> And those militia were controlled/directed by locals rather than a
> central autonomous well organized institution with instantaneous
> communications.
True. But isn't the National Guard also atomized by
state except in event of a national call-up? I consider
that a "militia."
> > arms been interpreted so loosely, you might have
> > ended up with the same situation as evolved in
> > China between 1900 and 1928, when the Qing
> > government (and its Nationalist successor) had
> > not the resources or the freedom to place limits--
> > namely, a quasi-feudal system of local warlords.
>
> Oh. :-)
>
> > So I'm in favor of available weapons--but not the
> > weapons of mass and wanton destruction on a
> > national or global scale. Weapons designed to
> > destroy thousands should not be in the hands of
> > individuals, for there is precisely *no* value to
> > them other than the pre-emptive and offensive.
>
> Read a short piece of fiction if you are so inclined: _The Ungoverned_
> by Vernor Vinge. It can be found in the book _True Names and Other
> Dangers_ or the book _Accross Realtime_.
I'll have to look at these--I'm afraid my library
of fiction is rather sparse. I'm beginning to forget
that good literature exists!
> > See above. We're looking for fascists so
> > fervently, that we're starting to develop a
> > bunker mentality. And I'm totally in disagree-
> > ment with you on the "reason" for the RKBA
> > existing--as a historian, I can tell you that the
> > colonists considered themselves Britons until
> > 1775, so they believed London was "their" gov't
> > but in fact it was not and had never been, since
> > the Crown assumed control of colonies in the
> > late 1600s. It's all bound up in issues of identity
> > as colonists and Britons that I don't want to get
> > into here--but suffice to say that the apparent
> > "defence from our own bad and injudicious
> > government" clause is not the primary reason
> > we have the 2d Amendment.
>
> I don't understand how this impact the cause of the 2nd. You say it
> does, and I don't want to dispute someone who clearly knows more than I
> do about the relevant history, but you haven't explained to me how this
> colonial identity crisis affects the second at all.
Whoa. I set down the machine without
linking any gears, heh. What I was trying
to get at was that the mentions of "our"
government among colonists really refers
to an outside--British--type of imposition,
and not a locally-representative edifice.
Colonial assemblies and the like--call them
state governments or county governments
now--aren't what they're talking about.
You're right, that paragraph up there should
be taken out and shot.
> > This is American triumphalism, Chris--and
> > probably the most pernicious manifestation
> > of US imperialism today. It's closely tied to
> > development theory, namely that the West
> > (and more specifically, the United States)
> > represents the pinnacle of human achievement
>
> Well, I think that's true. Sorry. (I just hope we don't stop here,
> cause it's not good enough.)
I'll agree that it's the best enumerated system
we have, but it's not the only possible path.
We can't exist if everyone is like us--Immanuel
Wallerstein (among others) has shown that
pretty effectively. For us, it's fine and I agree
with you--but for the rest of the world? No.
> > that these "less developed" states can reach
> > only with our help, since they're obviously
> > less capable of managing their own affairs.
>
> I don't think that. I just think that we might be able to guide them to
> where we've arrived without stumbling over the same obstacles that we
> had to. And maybe I'm wrong. I argue the other side with respect to
> North Korea. I think we shouldn't spend so much time preventing them
> from using fissionable material, and let them grow up. I ultimately
> think we won't ever really get inside their frame of mind and so our
> ability to help them is limited. This maybe the same in Rwanda, but we
> should have intervened just because it was so horrific. I think we
> stand a better chance in Serbia, but not the way we're going.
>
> > It's terrifically simplistic to equate horrible
> > and genocidal acts with childhood--and not
> > only that, but it's just plain wrong, since it's
>
> It's not just plain wrong. It's just an analogy, and you shouldn't read
> too much meaning into it, but the idea behind it is sound. I do try to
> help me son not make the mistakes I made, and we should do the same as a
> nation, at least sometimes.
>
> > often the West (broadly defined) that created
> > and then *maintained*--and still do--the order
> > that makes this sort of thing happen over and
> > over, ad nauseum.
>
> Examples, please.
The United States's desire to "contain" the
genuine expression of people's will in Iran--
the Revolution of 1979--was accompanied
by our vilification of the regime and provo-
cation of it. In so doing, we propped up
Saddam Hussein; we embargoed its people
to make that government collapse; and we
tied humanitarian aid to its willingness to
compromise on its stated--and publicly-
approved--program. In respose, they
sent rhetoric back and burnt flags, et cetera--
which we then latched onto as proof of their
barbarism. Most US citizens don't believe
that rational people would have a reason to
like the Ayatollah Khomeini or Mohammed
Farah Aidid (Remember Somalia?).
That's just one example of how our senses
are played upon (and yes, it *is* in part
done by the US government, but we're
receptive to it--hardly question it--which
is what I'm railing against). I'm not sure
if policy breeds ideology or vice versa,
but I have a suspicion that it's a helical
relationship (intertwined).
> > That said, I do agree that we should be doing
> > something about Kosova--but I don't agree
> > with how it's being done. Unfortunately, in
>
> Yeah, I think that Allbright (is that the right person?) should have
> drawn a gun from her purse and shot Milosevic the last time they met.
> That might get the ball rolling.
Well, for once, we agree on something! My
former editor-in-chief lived in a dormitory at
Wellesley with Madeline Albright, and said
that she was really a rather quiet person, so
I'm not sure I could see this. Aparently
she was quite determined then too, though.
A Croatian I met a few weeks ago told me
that she couldn't understand how Milosevic
got into power--but that only Tito, who played
down his origins, had the requisite legitimacy
to hold Yugoslavia together after WWII.
It's an example of one powerful individual
maintaining an idea--Yugoslavia--by sheer
force of will and ideological position. No
Tito, Yugoslavia's days are numbered--
it, too, was a creation of Western Europe
in 1918 with the breakup of Austria-
Hungary.
> > If they did, they'd have made their careers and
> > put lots of people out of work! Who are the
> > authors, by the way? I mean, what institution,
>
> Published by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Kates is
> a criminologist and Civil Rights Lawyer, and Kleck is a professor at the
> School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
Did PRIPP fund the research itself, or just publish
the results? If the former, the story of its genesis
is suspect--PRIPP is a very deregulation-friendly
think tank. From Yearbook News:
Pacific Research Institute is a nonprofit
organization which seeks to promote the
principles of individual freedom and personal
responsibility through the encouragement of
policies that emphasize a free economy, private
initiative and limited government. The Institute
focuses on policy issues such as education,
technology, welfare, environment, law economics
and healthcare.
<http://www.yearbooknews.com/html/pacifres.html>
It's suspect in either case, since Kates published another
book with PRIPP in 1990--I guess looking at that one
(_Guns, Murder, and the Constitution_) might be
interesting, to see the differences or similarities.
The organization is at http://www.pacificresearch.org .
LFB.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) "The people" - then and now - are whatever people we assume the constatution governs. That has clearly changed. I don't have answers to the fine points (e.g. are illegal aliens part of the people?) but I think that we can comfortably agree (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Hi. (...) But, the people of the colonies and the people of Britain had different worries. I don't want to get into a historical debate, because I am simply not equipped to do so...I mean I'm ignorant in comparison to you. (unless you're (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
