The Monopoly of Violence

An article from December 2012, from Gary North that continues to have resonance and applicability as I witness the ongoing usurpation of Individual Rights here in my adopted state of Virginia….as the newly emboldened Leftists seek to confer Rights and privileges of a Citizen on illegal aliens, and to transform the law abiding into felons overnight.

Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.

The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long.

In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use.

And his conclusion, that I not only foresee coming to pass…but welcome…….

I believe we are coming close to the end of the nation-state as we have known it for the past 500 years. I believe that the military historian, Martin van Creveld, is correct. The central governments are running out of solvency, and their ability to provide protection against crime and also provide retirement benefits for the mass of humanity, is in decline.

Over the next half-century, and perhaps even less, politicians are going to realize that they can no longer protect citizens against armed criminals locally, and they cannot afford to support their aging populations. At that point, there will be a transfer of legitimacy back in the direction of local civil government. Local civil governments will rest heavily upon armed citizens who are in a position to be deputized.

So, I expect a greater decentralization. This decentralization will take place most rapidly in societies where citizens have never surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This is why I think the United States is the most likely nation to be the working model for this process of decentralization.

Link – In Defense of the Second Amendment

5 thoughts on “The Monopoly of Violence

  1. Interesting thoughts but most of us think gun control in the UK stems from a VERY historical event, a couple of MAJOR modern history events, and a whole lost of populist politics thereafter.

    The historical one was when a prime minister was put down in 1812.
    Shortly thereafter the FIRST gun controls were introduced as the politicians tried to protect their own worthless hides.

    The second were the two world wars.
    The worry of our betters being that there were too many ARMED ex-servicemen with considerable hatred for the measures introduced AFTER each war that impacted greatly on the little people in life.

    After that there was a considerable pause until the great unwashed became more educated (and informed), They started to read more and popular media become a manipulator of the truth, sensationalist, and to a certain extent, a non government controlled political brainwashing tool.

    Which brings us to the abolition of the death penalty.
    Something done in response to the wettest of people using the media to force “change for the better”.

    Only when they did that, our betters largely shot themselves in the foot as the ultimate deterrent of death by hanging was removed. What to do about it? Tighter gun laws which we all know achieved very little.

    Then came our two ‘mass shootings’.
    In numbers terms they were pretty pathetic BUT the media leaped on them with gusto and blew them way out of proportion. Then the protests started.
    Mothers against everything mainly and our largely ‘male’ politicians went into panic mode (again).
    After all politicians are scared of their own shadows but especially women demanding the government do something, anything, TO GET RID OF THE GUNS!

    So the idiots did just that and the age of appeasement politics was born.
    Which is where we are today.
    The laws concerning everything ‘perceived’ to be more dangerous than a cream puff are legion and only affect the law abiding. We have the offensive weapons laws, self defence laws, knife and gun laws, and in the main they have achieved nothing apart from reducing the law abiding to the role of reactive targets for the criminals to practice on.

    BUT that’s OK because the sheeple have been given what they asked for.
    Anarchy on the streets.

    So where does that leave the US?
    If you want to stop all this silliness eroding your rights, do away with the media.

    Without those mouthpieces, the liberal, bleeding heart bad mouthing, can’t force their wacky populist appeasement politics through. Simply because there would be no way to brainwash the insipid to protest about something they are incapable of understanding.

    As a side thought, I was reading about the media in war.
    In it was a very obvious statement.
    War has become too public.
    The old military doctrine of what happens in the field STAYS in the field evaporated during the Vietnam war and right through to modern conflicts.
    Now it’s not success that wins war, it’s popular opinion (courtesy of the media).
    Add a few mangled civilians and pure speculation about what happened in “live coverage”, and the media gives voice to the weak in heart and mind which curtails wars before their objectives have been realized. As a result nothing ever gets finished and that encourages terrorism.

    Then there is the worst sort of injustice.
    The sterile court room dramas where soldiers are held to account for things that should NEVER been aired in public as they happened in the field.

    Ironically technology and instant global access to media, PLUS the stupidity of modern soldiering that lets idiots record everything they do that leads to these court drama’s. Some would say they brought it on themselves. Probably in some cases but sometimes it’s the interpretation of a few seconds of video which is taken out of context by the media that causes the most absurd of claims of misjustice to the enemy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good points all, but if we’re getting rid of the media (a highly implausible proposition), I’d rather make a clean sweep and eradicate media that caters to both major parties.

      I do disagree a bit where it regards the military, the public should have a stake in the defense of our nation……that includes the knowledge of what is done in their name, good and bad. The near religious idolatry of the military in this country is disturbing enough without adding a blanket of thorough secrecy of the deeds committed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • We had a simple rule. No pictures, no sound bites, no reporters, and no trophies.

        Other units didn’t and in some cases they (and their families) got hurt YEARS after the event even though in the end they were exonerated. Simply because when shit gets thrown around, some always sticks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s