5 ms·

Um. > examples of private firearms preserving liberty and democratic government.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
How many times do you have to fight off a foreign power seeking to impose its will on your society before you get a pass for not setting up a democracy when you're done?
- handrous 5y ago
  OK, so they can be handy, in the hands of a government-in-exile looking to replace a foreign-imposed kleptocracy with a restoration of their own religious authoritarian state. That's granting that we can call enough of what they've got "private arms" for them to be a significant factor in the first place (I truly don't know how that would break down—maybe most of their soldiers really do go out and buy their own guns, before joining the cause). Even so, none of that seems to have much to do with keeping one's own government liberal and democratic, though, which is what I'm interested in.
linksnapzz 5y ago
The taliban are now removing those in the ANA who kept 12-year old boys as unwilling catamites. Perhaps they need US State Dept. functionaries to educate them about the liberal necessity of this practice. Do you think that the late, plausibly democratic, US Gov't supported regime there for the last 20 years was somehow unaware of this problem?
- handrous 5y ago
  What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playing a vital role in preserving liberty & democracy, which is what I asked for. Do you?
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.
    - handrous 5y ago
      I mean the usual things that are meant by both those words, no special meaning. To address the simpler of the two directly: it's not necessary that an authoritarian state be unpopular—often they're not, especially at first—but that doesn't make them democratic, obviously. As for where the new Afghan government is likely to fall on the liberal-to-illiberal spectrum, I think most folks agree it's likely to, at best, lean toward the latter. That this may, nonetheless, in some ways, still be an improvement over the regime they're replacing, is irrelevant for my purposes. The reason all this matters is that the question I'm concerned with is whether the standard argument for why private gun ownership is vital to a liberal democracy—that is, that they're indispensable tools for preserving both the "liberal" and the "democracy" parts of that term—is actually true. My suspicion, from what I have turned up so far, is that they're more often used (when effective, that is—they're used ineffectively too, sometimes) as a tool for imposing popular but illiberal positions, than for preserving liberty & democracy, but it's possible I've just not looked at the right evidence yet.
      - linksnapzz 5y ago
        Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American political practice since Charles Stuart. This, for the purpose of having a decentralized fighting force to oppose a centralized standing army that served the government. You might say that the Stuarts were an unpopular but (in the modern sense ) more liberal...absolutist monarchy than the populist, puritan Protectorate was an illiberal theocracy, but I'd be wary of going too far retconning modern sensibilities to 17th century England. And, it isn't necessary.

How many times do you have to fight off a foreign power seeking to impose its will on your society before you get a pass for not setting up a democracy when you're done?

handrous 5y ago
OK, so they can be handy, in the hands of a government-in-exile looking to replace a foreign-imposed kleptocracy with a restoration of their own religious authoritarian state. That's granting that we can call enough of what they've got "private arms" for them to be a significant factor in the first place (I truly don't know how that would break down—maybe most of their soldiers really do go out and buy their own guns, before joining the cause). Even so, none of that seems to have much to do with keeping one's own government liberal and democratic, though, which is what I'm interested in.

linksnapzz 5y ago

The taliban are now removing those in the ANA who kept 12-year old boys as unwilling catamites. Perhaps they need US State Dept. functionaries to educate them about the liberal necessity of this practice. Do you think that the late, plausibly democratic, US Gov't supported regime there for the last 20 years was somehow unaware of this problem?

handrous 5y ago
What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playing a vital role in preserving liberty & democracy, which is what I asked for. Do you?
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.
  - handrous 5y ago
    I mean the usual things that are meant by both those words, no special meaning. To address the simpler of the two directly: it's not necessary that an authoritarian state be unpopular—often they're not, especially at first—but that doesn't make them democratic, obviously. As for where the new Afghan government is likely to fall on the liberal-to-illiberal spectrum, I think most folks agree it's likely to, at best, lean toward the latter. That this may, nonetheless, in some ways, still be an improvement over the regime they're replacing, is irrelevant for my purposes. The reason all this matters is that the question I'm concerned with is whether the standard argument for why private gun ownership is vital to a liberal democracy—that is, that they're indispensable tools for preserving both the "liberal" and the "democracy" parts of that term—is actually true. My suspicion, from what I have turned up so far, is that they're more often used (when effective, that is—they're used ineffectively too, sometimes) as a tool for imposing popular but illiberal positions, than for preserving liberty & democracy, but it's possible I've just not looked at the right evidence yet.
    - linksnapzz 5y ago
      Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American political practice since Charles Stuart. This, for the purpose of having a decentralized fighting force to oppose a centralized standing army that served the government. You might say that the Stuarts were an unpopular but (in the modern sense ) more liberal...absolutist monarchy than the populist, puritan Protectorate was an illiberal theocracy, but I'd be wary of going too far retconning modern sensibilities to 17th century England. And, it isn't necessary.