[ExI] Tooth and Claw (was ccp struggles)

[The Avantguardian]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 12:54:26 AM PDT, Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: 

>> In theory, because it is the duty of the criminal justice system to do so. In Mexico, however, the well-armed drug cartels and the police seldom clash and instead they usually victimize the unarmed citizens. Low hanging fruit and all.

> The Mexican drug cartels are organised and have huge amounts of money to spend on weapons. This is what it would take to oppose the Government; but as in Mexico, there would then be the problem of what such a militia would do with the power.

That is a common misconception. The 2nd Amendment is not about opposing the government, it is about BEING the government. Perhaps there is something you don't quite get about Americans. It is something that many Americans don't get about themselves because they try to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a vacuum. One has to take into account not just the Constitution but also the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founding principle of America is that the people ARE the government. Whereas other countries have rulers, we Americans have representatives. In other words, we consent to be governed by our equals (i.e. morally equivalent peers) for the sake of schools and highways and the common good. But an armed person and an unarmed person are not equal, they cannot be, for one can coerce the other.

Another way to think about it is this. Max Weber defined a state as an entity that maintained a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders. In most countries when there arises a group of people like an armed gang, cartel, militia, or terrorist organization, then that monopoly on violence is broken and the existence of the state is questioned. Here in the United States of America however, since we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we prevent this from happening by allowing almost everyone to have access to weapons and be part of the militia. An all-inclusive monopoly on the legitimate use of force can never be broken. The use of force for self-defense is legitimatized by natural law.. At least that was the intent of the Founders as near as I can tell.

In America, if you can't govern an armed populace, then you are not fit to govern.

Stuart LaForge