I've been listening to people talk about reforming the police and they all have good ideas. Some want to simply defund the police – even eliminate them – One twitter friend says [same as me].
"We need REAL police reform:
This post enlarges points made in:
As I've said elsewhere owning and using weaponry for self defense is an "auxiliary and subordinate" right. Samuel Adams quoted Blackstone and Parliament when he wrote, referring to the Glorious Revolution when English Parliament overthrew the Stuarts:
“At the Revolution, the British Constitution was restored to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards passed into a law”
Note the wording "restored" and "afterwards passed into a law", is expressing the principle that these human rights existed all the while in their denial, which is the reason that any right to own and use arms other than in the military is actually linked to the 9th and 10th Amendments and the product of hundreds of years of resistance by Citizens against Government Oppression. The right to bear arms is the right to participate in the defense, and by logical extension, the governance of the country.
This was a principle that dated back to "Old England." Samuel Adams in an essay published in the Boston Gazette during the early stages of the rebellion in New England that became our Revolution referred to the right to “have and use” arms as part of a list of "auxiliary and subordinate" rights that only apply;
Which are rights that people have auxiliary, to resisting oppression:
These are only rights in a context of protecting the primary rights of:
In Britain, only those with real estate property, "the gentry" were permitted to bear arms in the Militia. The Gentry were afraid of "the rabble" being permitted to bear arms, and as a result, Sam Adams said that:
“having arms for their defense” ... “a public allowance under due restrictions of the natural rights of resistance and self preservation, when the sanction of society and society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
This right to bear arms is an auxiliary right necessary to resist "the violence of oppression", not a right of mere disaffection, or to engage in oppression or ethnic cleansing. If there is no oppression and no occupying military, there is no need to possess and sue arms. Hence the word "auxilliary." To the nascent Rebellion, it also was a response to the presence of “Military Troops” due to the fear that;
“Violence is always to be apprehended from Military Troops”
If you talk to any gun nut, they know full well this history, and that the great fear of "Standing Armies" was what drove the founders of this country to create a second Amendment. But they interpret that fear the way Southerners did in the antebellum period before 1865. They saw it as a right for the Free Men (they expanded the franchise from the Gentry) and Gentry to defend their property, which included other people. They didn't see slaves, peasants, indentured servants and the property-less worker, as full equals in society. But their arguments saying "All Mankind" meant that this was a deluded attitude.
Expanding the role and scope of the National Guard to include health care, emergency response and police training, is in the scope of what the intent of the Militia clauses in Article 2 Section 8 and the Second Amendment would have intended.
This post continues a theme I started long ago, but directly follows my post:
It is my contention that the second amendment is not primarily about the right to bear arms, but about the right to participate in self government and in the defense and security of our local areas and of our United States.
It is important to remember that from the beginning of the country, for Democratic Republicans:
“Arms were merely a tool to accomplish the constitutional end.”
The Founders sought in militia a corps of civic mindedness and self reliance, a:
...a band of brothers, and maintain your rights, liberties and independence with your last breath.” [Palladium]
Thus the core of the militia concept and the second amendment is the notion of Virtuous Citizenship! The Second Amendment is about the importance of Arming with the appropriate tools and training needed for citizens to participate in their own governments, self defense, disaster response and emergencies both local and national. That spirit is present in first responders to this day.
Therefore being "Armed" has a broader meaning than merely carrying an AR-15 or a military weapon; it means people being educated, trained, drilled and provisioned with the tools and resources needed to respond flexibly to whatever situation may arise both within or outside our country. Not everyone need bear a musket, but the underlying concept also includes all the tools and resources needed to rescue, repair, restore, and sustain our society. Thus in the modern and broader sense, the "right to bear arms" is the right to opportunity to participate in our Country's welfare and to become fully participating citizens. The "arms" involved include medical supplies, tools, tools and resources needed to keep communications open, power-lines and pipe-lines, all of them, operating, repaired, sustained and restored during emergencies and in preparation for emergencies.
The fact is that all our Police, Firemen, military forces in general, all descend from Militia. Health-care, power distribution and communications emerged within our communities, often tied to the necessities of self defense. When they are of, by and for locals, people feel a sense of both belonging and personal empowerment.
When police, fire, etc... come “from outside the community” they tend to be “standing armies” When police kill innocent people, it is usually because they feel like they are trying to control people who are alien to them. Police can be local volunteers and professionals or they can be from outside. When from outside they are either acting the role of “Standing Armies” or coming to the aid of locals who needed help. The founders saw standing Armies as an evil. As:
“that potion of idleness and corruptor of morals, a standing army”
The militia were meant to be an antidote to standing armies. A modern national guard can be an antidote to communities that feel oppressed and invaded. The old militia became unworkable as drilling for war became irrelevant to most people's daily lives. The country went to “select militia” they brought in police and firemen, often from outside the communities they were serving. Even so the modern version of a select militia National Guard was meant to be an antidote to Standing Armies. As also was the draft. A select militia makes service mandatory for a limited period. But not everyone is suited to carry a weapon. And there are so many more important services needed to respond to disasters and exigencies than Ar-15s or Military weapons.
The trouble with divining "original intent" is that it can lead to anachronistic interpretations and faulty reasoning beyond simply anachronism fallacy! The trouble with the terms "cannonical" and "anti-cannonical", is that they try to apply religious terminology to what is essentially a human endeavor. Legal systems are designed to bind society to the wisdom and prescriptions of accepted law. But human interpretation is still necessary and so, just as the Plessy Versus Fergussen or Dredd Scott decision were later overturned; our understanding of law can and must change as society evolves. The constitution is a dead document unless we who live apply its principles as well as its dictates rationally and are able to use legal process to change those that must change. In some cases that might mean the amendment process, in others it is a matter of definition. The author of "Wrong the Day it was Decided" sought in the concept of "Constitutional Historicism" to bring principles of textual analysis to judicial decision making.
The best way to manage our health care rationally, and to provide for good healthcare for everything, is to put at least a component of it under a National Service Framework. The education, training and minimum provisioning "arming" of healthcare providers all should be organized at a National level and also carried out in each State.
"The rights and privileges of natural persons under this constitution originate in the right of the individual to himself, therefore these rights are the rights of natural persons." [Source: Henry George in the Condition of Labor]
"Any privileges of Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state derive from the people and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, as appropriate. These rights are not to be construed as inherent or inalienable but are privileges established to serve the public good."
All citizens shall have the right to participate in the political process, to vote in elections in their permanent domicile and to effective representation in Federal, State, and local governing entities.
All contributions of any person, or artificial entities to the political process must be publicly disclosed. Undisclosed contributions may be construed as bribery or undue influence with or without evidence of quid pro quo.
A Free Press being necessary to a Free Republic, all meetings and interactions of Government officials, elected or appointed, executive, Judiciary or Legislature; shall be recorded for posterity; and unless a compelling reason exists for the deliberations to be kept secret, shall be witnessed by members of the press and reasonable representation of the general public. Any records marked secret shall only be kept secret for the minimum appropriate time for such secrecy, and only those parts such as necessary to protect actual natural security shall be redacted when released before that time. The press shall be compensated for performing recording, reporting, archiving or witnessing efforts by the hour at the same hourly rate as the House of Representatives is compensated.
The President shall be elected by a majority of voters. If no candidate shall achieve 50% + 1 of the popular vote, then there shall be a run off election between the 2 candidates with the highest percentage of the vote.
The Post Office shall enable people to cast ballots through the Post Office in all jurisdictions where there is an election and shall accept ballots from 5 days before the election to Midnight of Election Day.
No Government, State, Federal or local may infringe on the right of citizens to cast their ballots within their neighborhoods and for each citizen to cast one vote in the elections of their permanent place of residence that have jurisdiction over them. Reasonable identification may be required and the security of ballots shall be protected. But no legitimate voter may be denied a vote due to improper challenges of their identity and no vote may be ignored or thrown out that was cast by a citizen without that citizen being notified and given a chance to make a correction.
The People shall have the right to vet all candidates for elective office and to require that they disclose relevant information on their fitness for office under oath. All elective and appointed offices shall be audited at the end of their term of office and the information reviewed by a bipartisan or non partisan panel and put into a report.
All Citizens and legal residents residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to meaningful work and to be compensated for such work at a reasonable wage.
All Citizens and legal residents residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to adequate shelter and to be secure in their possessions within such shelter from unreasonable search and seizure.
All natural persons residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to adequate medical care
All Citizens and legal residents of the United States shall have the right to economic care during sickness, accident, old age, unemployment or infirmity.
The above is suggested language.
Background Notes
"This right of property, originating in the right of the individual to himself, is the only full and complete right of property. It attaches to things produced by labor, but cannot attach to things created by God." [Condition of Labor]
Said Henry George in a letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum Novarum in 1891. Of all the responses to Rerum Novarum his was the most electric & most enduring. Rerum Novarum was cited by Catholic groups around the world, incited Catholic Social Action but also was part of the creed of Mediterranean fascists in the 19th century. It started as a seemingly radical left doctrine, but because it also protected ownership of land, it became a conservative force for the next century and into the present. Henry argued against being branded a socialist. And the above quote was the basis for that argument
""To attach to things created by God the same right of private ownership that justly attaches to things produced by labor is to impair and deny the true rights of property. For a man who out of the proceeds of his labor is obliged to pay another man for the use of ocean or air or sunshine or soil, all of which are to men involved in the single term land, is in this deprived of his rightful property and thus robbed." [Condition of Labor]
We humans have a basic right to possess land, shelter, work-places, access to markets and transportation:
"While the right of ownership that justly attaches to things produced by labor cannot attach to land, there may attach to land a right of possession." [Condition of Labor]
But that right is not unalloyed, without limits:
“God has not granted the earth to mankind in general in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please,” [Condition of Labor]
And there are logical and rational rules to such limits:
"regulations necessary for its best use may be fixed by human laws. But such regulations must conform to the moral law — must secure to all equal participation in the advantages of God’s general bounty." [Condition of Labor]
If man would apply moral law to the access to, control of and disposition of resources, we'd be in much better shape.
This post is part of a series intended to clarify how to write a second bill of rights and what should be in it in order to implement not only F.D. Roosevelt's vision, but the lessons of subsequent years. Obama proposed a constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United, but clearly that alone will only deal with one piece of the problem.
 |
I believe that DC versus Heller was badly decided. But since I'm not a lawyer and I agree that people should have a regulated right to own a gun under some circumstances. There are two fundamental reasons for this:
 |
note: This segues off of my post "why DC Versus Heller was badly decided" and a series of other posts written before and after this one, which are listed at the end of this post. It directly follows up on Thoughts on Defending Democracy which talks about the Swiss Militia and the even earlier post Militia Second-amendment and Democracy post where I talked of the second amendment referring to the Federalist Papers.
 |
In an earlier post I argued:
"In Switzerland, the purpose of the second amendment is on display. It's cantons are each prepared against invasions that nobody in Switzerland ever expects to happens, but they are prepared to keep their neighbors neighborly. The concept behind the second amendment was invented in places like Switzerland. The purpose of the second amendment was to avoid a standing army by having a strong militia. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp).
In Switzerland all the males are drafted. In the USA we have the National Guard, and then we have militia which often are no better than USA Nazi or fascist Brownshirts. I believe we need to bring back a nationally organized militia to avoid the brownshirts and to strengthen democracy. If we want that, maybe we need to imitate the Swiss."[Thoughts on Defending Democracy]
Since writing that article I started re-reading the Federalist Papers, especially enjoying the writings of Alexander Hamilton and I started understanding what he was really driving at. I've criticized him in the past but now I'm starting to appreciate him and wish he hadn't been murdered in 1804 by Aaron Burr. The man was brilliant, and he's been blamed for things that he tried to forestall. One of those things is the twin risks of a standing army and no standing army (chaos). He sought to create a collaborative government that would enlist existing States and local government in making a Federal Government that could keep the peace, improve and defend the country. His vision was in dialogue with the other founders, sometimes opposed sometimes congruent. That is why he switched sides in 1800. And doubtless why he was murdered. He had real integrity and that got him killed.
Article 1 Section 8 spells out these provisions for the militia:
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [US Constitution (COTUS) Article 1, sect 8];
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years [US Constitution (COTUS) Article 1, sect 8];
- To provide and maintain a Navy;[ibid]
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; [ibid]
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [ibid]
People think that "Militia" is the specific division of the Military and that somehow Army, Navy, Airforce, etc... are separate institutions. But in the framer's vision, at least that of Hamilton, Militia was seen as an expression of a collaborative structure intended to protect the States from each other and the people of the States from Tyranny: The Military as a Whole.
"The framers of the existing Confederation, fully aware of the danger to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States, have, in express terms, prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress. The truth is, that the existence of a federal government and military establishments under State authority are not less at variance with each other than a due supply of the federal treasury and the system of quotas and requisitions." [Federalist 25]Indeed Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says:
"No State shall ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power..."On the contrary the President is the one given that authority to carry out the laws of Congress:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" [Constitution Article 2 Section 2 http://constitutionus.com/] The constitution requires a division of effort and collaboration:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" [Constitution Article 1 Section 8] As I said collaborative. Even the appointment and training of the militia, which was delegated to the States was to be under the "discipline" prescribed by Congress. This is why the National Reserve is structured the way it is. The Constitution envisions collaborative government, not a rigid top down hierarchy, nor a chaotic temporary association of States.
Thus it is congress that has this powers:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"....[ibid] Necessary for the Security of a Free State
Then of course we have the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [2nd Amendment]This is a vision for collaboration. States are to be part of this, but Congress has the "General Role". Like an army with many colonels or divisions guided by a General Staff and a General. The President and Congress were intended to provide a general role for the military.
The Second Amendment is much more than a license to carry weapons for rednecks and insurrectionists. It is part of a vision of a collaborative government that would be able to "preserve the peace" and involve everyone.
But what constitutes the attributes and requirements for the "security of a free state" and why would a well regulated militia be one of them?
To answer that question you have to go to the Federalist Papers to see what Hamilton said on the subject. Because Hamilton has a very clear vision of how the Federal Government should work and why it should work that way.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Hamilton was very clear that the reason we needed a "Well Regulated Militia" was to reduce the need for a standing army at the Federal level, but also to reduce the need for standing armies at the State level. Thus the militia was to be organized by the States and available to them when needed, but that organization was to be centered on the "magistry" of the United States. Not just to avoid tyranny from the Federal Government, but to avoid State tyranny, and even scarier states having standing armies and using them against one another. In [Federalist 22] Hamilton warns against the dangers of the establishment of State Armies:
"The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy." [Federalist 22]
Hamilton's vision of the Military Service is in Federalist 29 In it he refers to the essence of the concept of the militia:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States." [Federalist 29]
In this passage Hamilton is referring obliquely to the concept of the "militia of the whole", which is the notion that the "militia" is an expression of the body politic, all the able bodied men (and in modern thought, women) of the country. And the cost of maintaining a mobilization of the entire "militia of the whole" would be ruinous:
"To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist 29
Hamilton is endorsing the notion of voluntary Universal Service. 2A not a prescription for folks being armed for the heck of it, but in this context of Universal Service. And that service involves the importance of disciplining (at least training folks to handle weapons safely and not shoot themselves in the foot. And what he describes next is the basis for the notion of a National Guard and a Universal National Service:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia." Federalist 29
What is needed is a core cadre of well trained persons. Well trained volunteers and officers can both defend the country and prevent the need to have a giant standing army.
"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." Federalist 29
Hamilton advocates that we need Universal Service, with volunteers trained to be ready for any necessity. He knew that Universal Service is an antidote to Standing armies.
"This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''" Federalist 29
The Founders, especially Hamilton, did not endorse a loose confederation. Hamilton saw real danger in too much power exercised by the States, and importance of Union:
"the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together be severed or dissolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation." [Fed 15]
He wasn't calling for a Federal Government that couldn't enforce it's own laws:
"Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation."
And he clearly saw the reality that there is no choice between coercion and some kind utopian anarchy but also that the commonwealth has to have the ability to apply coercion.
"This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it." [Fed 15]
In a series of articles Hamilton reviews history of Federations from Greek times to his present moment with mention of the Netherlands and Poland -- which were both suffering disarray at the time he was writing. He summarizes his central point in Federalist 15:
"THE tendency of the principle of legislation for States, or communities, in their political capacities, as it has been exemplified by the experiment we have made of it, is equally attested by the events which have befallen all other governments of the confederate kind, of which we have any account, in exact proportion to its prevalence in those systems. The confirmations of this fact will be worthy of a distinct and particular examination. I shall content myself with barely observing here, that of all the confederacies of antiquity, which history has handed down to us, the Lycian and Achaean leagues, as far as there remain vestiges of them, appear to have been most free from the fetters of that mistaken principle, and were accordingly those which have best deserved, and have most liberally received, the applauding suffrages of political writers. [Fed 15]
Federations that depended on sovereign subdivisions or unanimity of consent eventually fell apart and dissolved into war as Federations formed by "uniting in a common interest a number of lesser sovereignties, there will be found a kind of eccentric tendency in the subordinate or inferior orbs, by the operation of which there will be a perpetual effort in each to fly off from the common centre."
This was his "exceptional principle":
"This exceptionable principle may, as truly as emphatically, be styled the parent of anarchy: It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war." [Fed 15]
In Federalist 20 Hamilton warns [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed20.asp]:
"I make no apology for having dwelt so long on the contemplation of these federal precedents. Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting VIOLENCE in place of LAW, or the destructive COERCION of the SWORD in place of the mild and salutary COERCION of the MAGISTRACY"
Hamilton pretty much dismisses the notion that the States could possibly be sovereign and independent without the country dissolving into permanent civil war.
"Independent of all other reasonings upon the subject, it is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace, to say that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and, after all, only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people, which is attainable in civil society."
Tyranny either at State or Federal level depends on the creation of standing armies. He warns that there is no viable alternative to the monopoly of force at the Federal Level because if the Federal Government doesn't have that power sectional factions or powerful states will step into the vacuum:
"It remains to inquire how far so odious an engine of government, in its application to us, would even be capable of answering its end. If there should not be a large army constantly at the disposal of the national government it would either not be able to employ force at all, or, when this could be done, it would amount to a war between parts of the Confederacy concerning the infractions of a league, in which the strongest combination would be most likely to prevail, whether it consisted of those who supported or of those who resisted the general authority. It would rarely happen that the delinquency to be redressed would be confined to a single member, and if there were more than one who had neglected their duty, similarity of situation would induce them to unite for common defense. Independent of this motive of sympathy, if a large and influential State should happen to be the aggressing member, it would commonly have weight enough with its neighbors to win over some of them as associates to its cause. Specious arguments of danger to the common liberty could easily be contrived; plausible excuses for the deficiencies of the party could, without difficulty, be invented to alarm the apprehensions, inflame the passions, and conciliate the good-will, even of those States which were not chargeable with any violation or omission of duty."
Sectionalism proceeds from the ambitions and greeds of the leaders of any society. And the alternative to Union and commonwealth is the unleashing of the ambitions of such perverse and vicious persons:
"This would be the more likely to take place, as the delinquencies of the larger members might be expected sometimes to proceed from an ambitious premeditation in their rulers, with a view to getting rid of all external control upon their designs of personal aggrandizement; the better to effect which it is presumable they would tamper beforehand with leading individuals in the adjacent States. If associates could not be found at home, recourse would be had to the aid of foreign powers, who would seldom be disinclined to encouraging the dissensions of a Confederacy, from the firm union of which they had so much to fear. When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of irritated resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extremes necessary to avenge the affront or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed16.asp
So while there is risk at both Federal and State level from standing armies. The only real alternative to them is the "Citizen Soldier" and a collaborative system of Volunteer Army. This concept can mitigate the risk:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons [e]ntrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
And without the checks and balances of a Union those "Force of Arms" solutions become something no individual or disorganized citizenry can resist. The country becomes vulnerable to usurpation and real tyranny. It can happen, People like Mussolini were able to use militia and collaboration from authorities to impose tyranny. Hamilton understood a disorganized and poorly trained militia would be helpless.
"The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
That is enough for now.
Arr me mates! When we think of pirates we usually think of Johnny Depp playing the role of Jack Sparrow. But piracy has a history that goes way back into antiquity. For example, the reality behind "Homer" was Greek pirates versus Trojan pirates. In most of history merchant ships weren't that much different from warships. They were armed. If they saw a ship that looked stronger than them, they fled. If they were hungry and on the hunt, they pursued. In times where rule of law isn't strong enough the law of the jungle applies and each ship, merchant or warship, is a little kingdom. Thus theft, business and warfare have always been connected.
The ideology of nobility and feudalism was based on the notion that if you could steal property and defend those thefts, it was your property. And all you needed to do was to bow to those with more power and property than you had. It was an ideology of piracy. Refined and semi-legalized, we have an ideology of privateering that corrupts capitalism and socialism alike, and makes people.“hunters of men” Our Mafia is legal, descended from the “brotherhood of the coast” and has an esoteric ideology that treats other expressed beliefs as cons.
Formally put:
The ideology of privateering, believed by sea dogs and their successors alike, worldwide, is the notion that everything should be privately owned and governed. And that anything that can be carved up and turned into property, should be. They further believe that any such loot or property so acquired, even through force and occupation, even if later adjudicated as having been illegally obtained, as long as the theft was licensed by the regime of the time, is the property of the thief.
Original Privateers sought a "letter of Marquee" that enabled them to wage private warfare and theft against enemies of the State they lived in. Modern pirates use contracts, corporations, courts and legislators to get licenses, mortgages or liens, or simply seize and convert property to their own. Privateering business is ruthless capitalism and ruthless private government. And legalized kleptocracy, venality and transactionalism.
The ideology of privateering says that “as long as it is legal” anything goes! A pirate is only "illegal" if he doesn't have some permit from government for his piracy. If one has a title, letter of marquee, or corporate charter, as long as it isn't deemed illegal by a court, it is perfectly justified.
Under this ideology property taken, including via warfare, property, human beings or vital public services. In the ideology of privateering, looting is the point, not a simple benefit. Privateers often see themselves as warriors, for God, for Country or simply for loot. For the privateer, laws are written to justify looting. Rule by the strongest is assumed, and those who lose a battle or get conned, don't deserve any share in the loot acquired.
And on the contrary, if a person is deemed by law, no matter how corrupt, to no longer own a thing, their use of it is piracy.
In Switzerland, the purpose of the second amendment is on display. It's cantons are each prepared against invasions that nobody in Switzerland ever expects to happens, but they are prepared to keep their neighbors neighborly. The concept behind the second amendment was invented in places like Switzerland. The purpose of the second amendment was to avoid a standing army by having a strong militia. (Snopes: Switzerland).
In Switzerland all the males are drafted. In the USA we have the National Guard, and then we have militia which often are no better than USA Nazi or fascist Brownshirts. I believe we need to bring back a nationally organized militia to avoid the brownshirts and to strengthen democracy. If we want that, maybe we need to imitate the Swiss.
In Israel they have a similar system, though they exempt too many people from it. Israel would be well off imitating the Swiss. The Swiss have multiple religions that once were at each other throats. Originally the militia also had the job of protecting Swiss protestants from Swiss Catholics as well as from outsiders. A secular militia enables freedom of religion by encouraging people to distinguish between tribal and religious identity -- and national or civic identity. If everyone is Swiss; Buddhist, Christian, Moslem or Hindu, first, then there is no reason to kill as "Non Swiss" folks who are not one's own sectual preference.
Teaching civic identity and civic values is part of establishing and maintaining civilization. Civitus versus "tribus" is the reason the concept of "civitus" was invented in the first place. You can't have functional markets or urbanity without the ability of many disparate people coming together under uniform laws to trade and exchange. Without those common laws, and common courts, the tendency of people is to fall to clan feuding.
Sorry but markets don't govern themselves, they have to have a government to exist. A market government may look like anarchy, but the regulations, the uniform weights and measures, the money that can be trusted, etc... are all features of government necessary to a functional market.
Civitus, is also a requirement for militia. If everyone was trained in how to use a fire arm and the principles of our democracy, they also will assert a role in the civil government. If that civil government transgresses their rights, they will stand up for them. More importantly, they will not serve an illegitimate government. Militia, as in Switzerland and Israel are necessary to civil government. They are a Republican Institution. Created to defend the State, but also as a check on Standing Armies and Royal Ambitions. It is no accident that the parade ground was also the forum, was also frequently the market place, and was associated with elections. Originally only men could vote. And only men could serve in the militia. The right to defend one's liberty is associated with the right to participate in government. The basis of democracy is the right of people to participate in defending their homes. Without that right, and people fulfilling the duties associated with it, power is usurped by standing armies and authorities.
The right to defend oneself is also associated with religious liberty. During the English Civil wars, Catholics were disarmed under Protestant rule and Protestants were disarmed in Catholic ruled areas. Ultimately, this issue was resolved by the concept of military virtue as serving a virtuous state. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc... agreed to defend their country and allow all religions the freedom to worship, to protect their own freedom to worship. "Secular humanism" wasn't invented opposed to religion, that is a modern myth. Secular humanism is just an expression of the concept of "civitus" taken to modern times. A state religion denies freedom to people who exercise choice in what they believe. Heresis (choice) became "heresy" in early Christianity because of the authoritarian of the Roman and successive Empires. Without the right to participate in one's own government, militia or standing armies, would be turned on deciding which version of authoritarian religion is number one. The concept of militia is designed to protect Baptist against Anglican, Quaker against Baptist. We all unite together to protect our rights.
Maybe, we need to bring back the militia, with a uniform "basic training" so that young adults can grow up together and responsibly use fire-arms. And they would need to have a license as a result -- and only those with such a license should be able to acquire one. So if someone has a gun, it is secured according to regulations, used by someone who knows to empty the bullets out before cleaning it, etc...
Or maybe we need to modernize the whole concept. Modern volunteerism and Emergency response, include Police, Fire, Rescue, Emergency Services, Repairs to Infrastructure, Hospitals and Clinics, Ambulance Services, etc... Pretty much every service to the people of the country has both a training and educational component, a need for local readiness and components and a national component. Perhaps we need to expand our concept of "militia" to include a panoply of services that defend our security. A strong case can be made for applying the model spelled out in the constitution to accomplish socially necessary public good. For more on this read:
Criminals sometimes move outside the law on their own, but often they are pushed there by exclusion from legitimate society. The concept of civitus is around the notion we should pull them into our comity and create a civilization rather than warring communities and tribes. Even tribal communities usually have something like that. They take the kids, train them, run them through an initiation ceremony and after that they are adults, act like adults, feel they are adults and usually are ready to be adults. Militia plays that role in civilized societies on a larger scale.
And Militia is part of how modern and ancient democracy got started. The first step to democracy is the general assembly. And most general assemblies were initially of men who could fight to defend a town or village. An army can provide a rough democracy to a town and in ancient England the Yeomanry won their rights because their arrows and weapons were necessary to the survival of the British Crown in it's wars and civil wars. They won rights by being able to fight for them, and then not having to do so, because the official government; barons, clerics and officials -- had to respect them.
Representation usually came with the ability to provide armed forces as well. Our militia made the difference in our revolution against the British, but it was the unity of it, and it being led by a trained officer corps that made the difference. Hence the words "well regulated militia" in the constitution. We've had a standing army due to external wars, but if we weren't constantly war-mongering at the behest of war-profiteers we wouldn't need such a standing army. And we've traditionally drawn our standing army by drafting people who spend the rest of their obligation in militia. Police, fire, rescue, all have their origins in militia. We need to have a stronger National Guard, and train people so they can be part of our society -- and that starts with training them to be in a militia. It doesn't have to be an armed militia; fire brigades, flood brigades, medical brigades, even science and health brigades, could fill the bill too.
So we should use the National Guard, strengthen it's functions, and include within it medical corps, first responder training, fire and rescue training, first aid. All the stuff folks like me learned as a boy scout. And use that institution to create a real bottom up institution to involve our young men in our society.
Anyway, I'd take most of our guns, the heavy caliber ones, and move them to armories, that would just also happen to be associated with community centers, firing ranges, and where people could learn to fire a gun, and if they wanted an AK-47 or AR-15, keep it in a gun locker under control of a Sargent there. Then should there be a disaster they'd be the first responders, not some invading army. And if someone wants to play with his assault rifle, he can do it some place where he's not going to hurt anyone. Or she.
We can get by with a smaller standing army, if we put a larger commitment to militia and to training our young people. This is the "Reserve" successor to the original Militia Idea. This should be using the constitution. A Standing Army, especially one that is mercenary and run for profit, is a danger to our Republic. Now I'd organize it on a membership basis, with National, State, county and local member branches run by full time soldiers, backed by a membership organization where militia members would have a voice in their own affairs with elected structures and general assemblies. The right to assemble is in the constitution for multiple reasons.
This was one of my first posts on the subject. I've written on the subject in great detail since
I used to love reading the heritage foundation's website. I knew they were spinning, but their spin was associated with facts. But now they are almost unrecognizable in their romantisation of the Gilded Age, and their misrepresentation (rewrite) of historical narrative. For example their page:
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.
Actually the progressives were building a new more expansive FEDERAL government to oppose the corruption and power of PRIVATE governments run by monopolies and corrupt city and State governments dominated by wealth and private interest. It was said in the 1800's that the Penn Railroad ran Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt controlled New York State. So this framing is designed to sell a product not tell the truth. It is basically an effort of the rich and powerful to rewrite the historical narrative.
They then go on to list all the heroes of the period;
Some Progressives were prominent journalists such as Herbert Croly (co-founder of The New Republic), some were distinguished professors such as John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson (president of Princeton before he was President of the U.S.), and many were political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Progressives could be found in both political parties: Wilson was a Democrat, Roosevelt was a Republican.
And they both try to hook people with misrepresentations of what the progressives were about, and at the same time manage to defame all the heroes of the progressive era (including people they otherwise claim to admire) with a broad brush:
The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the “individualism” of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a “living” and evolving Constitution, and the rule of “experts” in nationally centralized administrative agencies.
Actually their contempt was for the abusiveness of the "Horatio Alger" narrative of the lucky few pulling themselves up by non-existent bootstraps; when the reality is that most people simply wanted to make a living, improve the lives of their children and leave the world a better place for their grandchildren. The Horatio Alger myth creates a world of a one percent of "winners" and brands the other 99% as losers. And since the "economic royalists" [FDR's term] of the previous century were utterly corrupt, willing to recklessly go to war with one another [When Rockefeller laid his pipeline network he brought down the entire economy and many of the weaker railroads just to undermine his erstwhile allies in the rail industry], and owning the Senate and Courts, theirs wasn't a struggle against "individualism" but against corporate Kinglets.
And DeMint turns the "natural rights" narrative on it's head too. The progressives were not against natural rights, on the contrary they sought to use the Federal Government to make sure that individuals could retain their natural rights in the face of corporate kleptocracy, rent seeking, legal theft of mineral rights and land, and monopoly. To do this they had to use "Hamiltonian methods" to advance "Jeffersonian Goals." TR would first use the power of anti-trust, and when that wasn't sufficient he came up with the idea of organizing corporations so that they could be better governed. TR's ideas never really were fully realized, and Reagan corruptly ended efforts at Anti-Trust, so the issue now remains the same for modern day Progressives. The Empire Struck back, through it's armies of attorneys. And by creating the Heritage Foundation and then corrupting it into a propaganda rag. They've not only created an astroturfed ideology, but an alternative reality. A kind of corporate version of "Game of Thrones" only with lawyers instead of armed warriors.
Most of the right would also have you believe that all their precepts are based on the founding fathers, who somehow in their narrative were all rugged individualists who interpreted the constitution exactly the same and collectively wanted it frozen in ice (except where most conservatives want to chip away at it). They claim to want a literal and strict reading of the constitution, but since they ignore (conveniently) words they don't like they ignore the "militia" clause of the second amendment and ignore the 18th century meaning of "secure in one's person" since the word "privacy" in those days referred to Privy's (urinals) not privacy as we understand it now and "secure in one's person" referred to privacy. Since they are only literal or "strict" where it suits their convenience what they really want is an authoritarian or even tyrannical reading of the constitution that affirms their private separate advantage to make judgments and rule people locally with impunity. This puts the lie to their argument that it was "progressives" who wanted an expansive government. The conservatives just want that government either bought and paid for by themselves, or delegated to corporate and landlord rule. In short the argument isn't between a living constitution (since the advocates also interpret it) or a strictly interpreted one, but between a living constitution and the dead hand of local and distributed tyranny.
The one accusation that I'll grant the DeMint has a point on. And that Progressives made, was that they settled on administrative (bureaucratic) efforts to rule American Business. They started with experts, but nowadays they are likely to be well connected lawyers and the experts are either marginalized or get fired if they open their mouths. Still I'd rather have a genuinely neutral expert playing judge and having to justify his decisions than pretend creationists who are really Social Darwinists... The progressives did have faults. Just not the ones outlined by DeMint's heritage foundation.
And unfortunately regulation has become so complicated and such a round robin "captured" endeavor, that the government lawyers writing the rules are often working almost directly for the regulated, and they use their expertise to make money for the corporations once they leave government. Conservatives only pretend to complain about rent seeking, since that is the real object of de-regulation. If the Government doesn't regulate business, they locate businesses where they can kill the most [poor] people when something goes wrong -- like West Texas and then want the taxpayer to pick up the Tab, and "Gubbornment" to take the blame -- as if they weren't in fact doing much of the governing.
This adamantine romanticization of the 19th century (apparently including Antebellum Southern Slavery) is the real problem with the right in general and the Heritage Foundation and it's other organs. Folks like Jason Richwine, can't help themselves in exposing their racism, as he did in his College Thesis, because their sense of entitlement is on their sleeves and they regularly isolate themselves from reality. Prejudice is judging things before one actually studies all the angles, and that is what these articles represent. When one believes something "in advance" of evidence, one hunts for any argument to advance one's "truth".
I don't know what kind of heritage that is.
Further reading:
