In an article by a writer for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (on the need for armed groups in Libya to disarm in order to restore order) the author wrote:
"Disarmament in any context is never an issue of weapons reduction, but rather a social contract between the people and its government." Yes, there is too much violence in post-revolutionary Libya, but when government disarms unpopular groups for racist or political motives alone, is that also part of the "social contract?" Do you really think whomever emerges in power in Libya is going to disarm their allies? Are the assuredly going after their political enemies with equal vigor?. I don't think most of us are naive to beleive that, esp. given the political history of the Middle East. Notice the writer says "in any context." I object to those 3 words.
I guess the Klansmen, Southern Sheriffs and state judges who disarmed the freedmen in the Reconstruction South and later were doing this pursuant to a social contract of which the freedmen and their descendants were parties? Were the Armenians part of the "social contract," with the Ottoman Empire who disarmed them and then committed one of the worlds' worst genocides? What planet are the folks at the Endowment from?
I tried to leave a comment but the comment wouldn't go through. ("Your comment has not been posted. This usually means something unexpected occurred. Use the back button and try again")I tried again and tried to check their comment policy but the link to the policy didn't work. I gave up. I love these websites that pretend to be interested in feedback. I guess when you know it all and are sure your ideological position is the only rational one, you don't need feedback. This is the kind of mentality that believes that government is a nice, warm cuddly blanket that will take care of everyone and never attempts to treat anyone unfairly or abuse their rights. Government will create a paradise on earth! These folks are dangerous! One of the reasons left-wing authoritarianism is so dangerous and popular is that it hides under a warm, cuddly blanket. At least the Jews in Germany 1933-45 knew what they were up against!
Some nuggets from the article:
ReplyDelete"Also, at this point, many of the tens of thousands of militia members remain unconvinced that the best intentions of the national authorities line with their own interests."
And:
"The presence of weapons also does not necessarily indicate that militias have a need to use them; given the militias’ degree of fragmentation, no group is capable of decisively defeating the others, leading to a general incentive to refrain from violence rather than induce it. For the most part (aside from isolated turf scuffles that appear unrelated to tribal affiliation) militias have sought to provide security to their respective localities, not disrupt it."
I doubt they are taking cues from the Founding Fathers, but her article is staring at her right in the face. Start taking guns away and the balance of power is lost. I'm sure that within the next few years there will be a stable democratic republic with 3 coequal branches of government anyway...
Professor Ray said " ... the kind of mentality that believes that government ... will take care of everyone and never attempts to treat anyone unfairly or abuse [people's] rights. Government will create a paradise on earth! These folks are dangerous!"
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly. You summarized nicely the mindset of socialist wannabes AKA social progressives. All political parties are guilty for this continued unconstitutional insult. It's just a matter of degree.
jr, I seriously doubt a purely democratic government is capable of having three branches with equally divided powers. Ours was formed a representative republic after its split with England's aristocracy. The British people did have democracy, but it was conditional in that nobility enjoyed most rights. I suspect all you'll get in Libya would be similar, or worse yet, mob rule. Of course, who am I kidding. We already have the big government class in the United States. These unproductive meddlers throw play money at the masses for their own empowerment and self-enrichment. I can almost hear them saying "Let them eat cake".
44, I think we are on the same page. Pure democracy ain't gonna work. A representative democracy is what I was meaning.
ReplyDeleteAlso, CNN has a different take ("Out Of Control")on what's going on in Libya: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-15/africa/world_africa_libya-militias_1_militias-abuses-libyan-officials?_s=PM:AFRICA
It's going to be a mess for a long time.
44 & jr.: thanks! In countries with no democratic traditions or political philosophies conducive to democracy, establishing one is extremely difficult. IMHO Libya will be a basket case for a long time. I am not trying to defend aggressive militias. The natural law right is one of having weapons for defensive purposes. Research suggests that certain minimum levels of education and prosperity and a stable middle class (not a dictator-supported class of bureaucrats) are necessary before democracy can take root.
ReplyDeleteLibya has a long way to go.
John Locke: "I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred."
ReplyDeleteNice quote. Thanks for sharing.
DeleteThanks everyone. jr: do you have a link or cite to the quote from Locke?
ReplyDelete