Why I Am An Anarchist

Stefan,

I'm not sure that the analogy works. Insurgencies/terrorist campaigns tend to work reasonably well against relatively-enlightened, fairly civilized opponents. The U.S. policy were to round up all Iraqis, put them in camps, and slowly exterminate all of them, then guns and roadside bombs wouldn't help all that much. I suspect that armed Jewish resistence would likely have just resulted in firebombing of all the ghettos. Against a foe that has zero concern for human life, guerilla war isn't, I think, all that likely to be effective. It is likely to invite horrifying retribution.

The Nazi argument always feels a bit too "blame the victim" for me. Nevertheless this guy{s main thrust is completely inapplicable in the modern world. Notwithstanding the details of the actual second amendment (indicating that right can't be infringed upon within the context of a militia) it just doesn't seem very practical. Fighting government authority with guns is just not a serious option. If you have guns they'll have tanks, etc.

It is not a perfect analogy, but it has its merit. It would have, I am reasonably certain, been harder for the Germans to exterminate a heavily armed people than an unarmed one, ceteris paribus.

I agree with Joe on this. I think it's more likely that violent resistance would have resulted it harsher treatment, and even more fervent anti-semitism in Europe generally. It's hard to imagine that the incredible efforts of a country like Denamrk in saving over amillion Jews threw nonviolent means would've been undertaken if the Jews had fought back (as the German "response" would've seemed more justifiable.) We would have percieved the conflict as something more akin to a civil war,rather than the brutal killing it was. Those are exogenous points though, as the most clear argument is that the germans would've simply firebombed the ghettos.

the problem with the Jews in Germany analogy is that it wasn't against the population as a whole but a small minority of the population. The rest of the German population supported(almost enthusiasticaly) the extermination of the Jews. Granted much of this support was through propaganda and brainwashing, but that is irrelevant.

Had the German military began their campaign without public support, and the Jews fought back, both militarily and politicaly (letting the general German population know what was going on), I have a feeling things in Germany would have gone differently.

Hitler was a damn smart man. He first convinced the people that removing the Jewish "problem" was the way to go, then started doing it in such a way that the people never saw the attrocities.

How the German people ever stood for invading all of Europe, I'll never understand, other than to attribute it to the fact that German's are nationalistic morons.

Jefferson's concept did not envision a nation in which we would have come as far as we have in creation of useless laws, taxes, etc. that we have now. You really can't use many of the founding fathers arguements for the necesity of the Bill of Rights in our modern political climate as they don't really hold for the post-14th ammendment u.S.A.

I think the appropriate ancap response to Matt27's point about tanks is that people needn't be as well armed as the state. Only well enough to make them a less attractive target. Not sure if that could have saved the Jews from Hitler, however.

If you have guns they’ll have tanks, etc.

In fairness to Raymond things might have turned out differently if Jews in Germany had waged an aggressive guerilla war against their Nazi oppressors. The Iraqi resistance has nothing more than guns and roadside bombs, for example, and they are not completely irrelevant.

How the German people ever stood for invading all of Europe, I'll never understand, other than to attribute it to the fact that German's are nationalistic morons.

Now just you wait a goddamned minute!

...

Nevermind. I guess that's fair.

Don't forget about Japanese, Italians, etc. Humanity has enough moronic nationalism to go around.

He first convinced the people that removing the Jewish “problem” was the way to go, then started doing it in such a way that the people never saw the attrocities.

including, to a great extent, the Jewish people themselves who were not a tiny bit misled as to the places they were going and why. This is yet another reason I'm suspicious of those who would imply that the jews were "asking for it" by not owning guns and fighting back.

How the German people ever stood for invading all of Europe, I’ll never understand, other than to attribute it to the fact that German’s are nationalistic morons.

I'm not sure how sarcastic you're being here, but I think the reasons are quite understandable. Governments who want to invade another country always use one of two succesful arguments (or in the Iraq war case, both succesively):

1. In Hitler's memorable phrase, that country x is a "dagger pointed at the heart" of our country.

2. We are invading to help the people in some way, defending them from some harm.

the reasons should be quite understandable because the US is constantly using those very reasons to motivate our populace to support all manner of ungodly things. We were "defending" the Vietnamese people (from themselves apparently), we had to terrorize Nicroagua because it was "two days march from Texas" (according to Reagan, that lunatic), and so forth. In Iraq, as I mentioned, we used both justifications (which we'd done before, but never quite so bluntly.) You might recall that Belgium brutalized the people of the Congo under the guise of "educating them" and saving them from their barbaric ways, or that Russia used to rationalize its military actions by referring to obscure CIA machinations in that country.

Jefferson’s concept did not envision a nation in which we would have come as far as we have in creation of useless laws, taxes, etc. that we have now. You really can’t use many of the founding fathers arguements for the necesity of the Bill of Rights in our modern political climate as they don’t really hold for the post-14th ammendment u.S.A.

I wouldn't put it this way, but the general thrust is correct. Whatever the arguments for civilian gun ownership are,they aren't in the second amendment.

Do you guys not think there's a tremendous amount of moronic nationalism in the US? Prominent Sociologists and Historians have warned that our population is very much resembling pre-fascist germany.

No! Up yours, Commie! Go back to France!

including, to a great extent, the Jewish people themselves who were not a tiny bit misled as to the places they were going and why. This is yet another reason I’m suspicious of those who would imply that the jews were “asking for it” by not owning guns and fighting back.

completely agree! I don't think they knew what was coming at first, but, if we look at it as how that would work in modern times, or how American's *should* view it, the fact that they were being rounded up and moved to another location, leaving all personal belongings and being seperated from family, should have tipped them off. Granted, I don't know if these practices were used at first, but I know they were moved without their belongings.
That said, we did the same to the Japanese in CA after our entrance into WWII, so it just goes to show how prejudism is ingrained in the human psyche and when confronted with fear the first thing we do is seperate by "color". It is currently showing itself in the attacks on innocent non-Al Queda Muslims, though at least now as a global society we have most people realizing it is wrong(mostly knowledge from WWII attorcities) and are trying to stop it from happening.

I’m not sure how sarcastic you’re being here, but I think the reasons are quite understandable. Governments who want to invade another country always use one of two succesful arguments (or in the Iraq war case, both succesively)...

But does it make the reasons *right*? no, it doesn't, and it takes a moron (or an idiot...) to do things because they're told to do so without thinking about it. (of course this sends us into the "would they have done it anyway" territory, which leads into the whole public education debate, etc...)

Does that mean all these other countries (including the U.S.) are not filled with morons and there is a deeper reasoning? nope, filled with morons (at least in the majority).

I wouldn’t put it this way, but the general thrust is correct. Whatever the arguments for civilian gun ownership are,they aren’t in the second amendment.

yea, I typed it so as to read as quickly as possible. I wouldn't exactly say thats my best foot forward in my arguement, but at least it got my point across (yea, yea, vaguely... ;-)

You could argue that it'sstupidity that allowsthe lies about war to work, but it's probably just a lever of gullibility that politicians have learned to manipulate. Does that make it right? Quite the opposite in fact. That's why I find the "war for strategic resources" interpretation of the Iraq war intuitvely convincing (because nearly every war has been about "strategic resources") while other things are claimed. Not to mention the fact that that theory works wuite well with the facts, it certainly seems to fit the historical mold.

I think you're right about the possessions argument, in fact that may reflect one ofhte lessons the world haslearned from the holocaust. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews just thought it was basically unthinkable that what was going to happen was going to happen.

The problem with the resources arguement, is that in the case of Iraq, their oil was already something we could purchase, we are not increasing our access to it any. Not that we purchased from them before, and from what I understand, Iraq holds less than 10% of the worlds oil. But lets say this whole democracy thing spreads, it could lower our costs for access to the total aggregate of oil in the middle east. Remember how much our government currently spends securing our access to oil around the world. It could also be argued though, that we could diminish that expenditure and still maintain access to the oil...

All in all, spreading democracy in the area is currently the only good arguement.

We were “defending” the Vietnamese people (from themselves apparently), we had to terrorize Nicroagua because it was “two days march from Texas” (according to Reagan, that lunatic), and so forth. In Iraq, as I mentioned, we used both justifications (which we’d done before, but never quite so bluntly.) You might recall that Belgium brutalized the people of the Congo under the guise of “educating them” and saving them from their barbaric ways, or that Russia used to rationalize its military actions by referring to obscure CIA machinations in that country.

I just realized this...
the logical arguement to these arguements for invading (and what people should have said), is that going to war with someone who could, or will, attack you is not as smart as entering negotiations with them and allowing capitalism to enter the country. Look at China, they're a capitalist communist nation, they have no reason to invade other countries because they're economy is doing so well in the position they are in. What reason would they have in declaring war against anyone other than to destroy the economy they've created? You might not necesarily like the people your negotiating with, but I would say I have a greater respect for the Chinese government than I do with the ex-Iraq, Saudi, etc. governments. Enough so not to want to go to war with them.

The problem with the resources arguement, is that in the case of Iraq, their oil was already something we could purchase, we are not increasing our access to it any.
true- we already get most of our oil from Venezuela anyway. Nevertheless, the more serious proponents of this theory point out that US policy in the region is based on control of the oil and not access (as well as other strategic concerns like a strong regional military base. The documentary record supports this rather well, with head state department planner George Kennan arguing that the region was strategically vital because control ensured "veto power" over other oil dependent countries (which are all the important ones thanks to the marshall plan.) Now he's writing at a time when the US actually produced most of our own oil, so the problem has never been one of access, but control. Hence our heavy support of the Saudis but our relative ambivalence toward the OPEC BS they're always pulling.

But lets say this whole democracy thing spreads, it could lower our costs for access to the total aggregate of oil in the middle east. Remember how much our government currently spends securing our access to oil around the world. It could also be argued though, that we could diminish that expenditure and still maintain access to the oil…

I don't think that looking at aggregate costs is fruitful for a few reasons. For one thing, the bearer of the major costs in this case is the taxpayer while the beneficiaries are private companies so, for the most part, no one who matters cares about the costs. I'd also reiterate my point about control being primary rather than access. Finally it's worth pointing out that the US would never tolerate serious democracy in the middle east. That supported by our past record (overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran) as well as a serious consideration of what it would likely lead to. A truly independent Iraq would likely:
a. move toward an economic unification with Kuwait and Iran for self interested reasons
b. Tolerate some kind of Kurdish state in the north, which is intolerable to Turkey, an ally.
c. Arm itslef with an eye toard Israel, its regional enemy.

Clearly these are intolerable to the US and, as such, it's remarkably unlikely that any serious democracy would be tolerated.

I just realized this…
the logical arguement to these arguements for invading (and what people should have said), is that going to war with someone who could, or will, attack you is not as smart as entering negotiations with them and allowing capitalism to enter the country. Look at China, they’re a capitalist communist nation, they have no reason to invade other countries because they’re economy is doing so well in the position they are in.
I disagree with you here, but I think it's a valid point. Certainly increasing trade (with Cuba now for example) is preferable than economically and militarily destroying a country. My own feeling is that a Hawk would've argued that Vietnam was closing its markets and so the option wouldn't have been available. Nevertheless, it's a fair point.

nice discussing with you.

matt

Just because a people are well armed does not mean they are free of tyranny. Saddam Hussein ruled harshly over a population that was armed to the teeth. If the government can manipulate public sentiment to a point where its subjects don't realize its their greater enemy, then even an armed population is harmless.

The people arguing that guns would not have made much of a difference for the Jews seem to be ignorant of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which pro-gun advocates have made a big deal out of.

Starting with smuggled weapons, the Jews killed Nazis, got more weapons, and (with a little help from the Polish army) effectively defended the jewish ghetto for a month. The Nazis had to practically destroy the neighborhood to stop them.

Now, its hard to say how generally applicable this is - after all, there is likely to be *some* incident like this which pro-gun people can point to. On the other hand if you're going to *specifically* discuss the Holocaust, it seems awfully relevant.

True Stephan, nobody is suggesting that the possession of weapons in and of itself is sufficient for a people to remain free, it's just often a necessary condition.

_Starting with smuggled weapons, the Jews killed Nazis, got more weapons, and (with a little help from the Polish army) effectively defended the jewish ghetto for a month. The Nazis had to practically destroy the neighborhood to stop them._

This was rather my point. The Nazis didn't particularly mind destroying entire neighborhoods if those neighborhoods were filled with Jews. If Jewish guerillas had done this sort of thing regularly, does anyone really think that the Nazis would have just given up and left them alone?

These sorts of tactics worked pretty well when Israeli Jews used them on the British after WWII. The Brits were (a) unhappy at being blown up, and (b) unwilling to slaughter indiscriminately to make it stop. I don't think that the Nazis met (b).

People saying the Jews would have been killed anyway are setting too high a standard. There is nothing they could have done, beyond a certain point, to survive. You simply cannot win a war when it's 20:1, the other side has organization and you do don't, and you have no arms.

I would argue, however, that if it were me, I'd far rather go down fighting than be killed like cattle without even a fight. The outcome may be the same, but then in the long run we're all dead. How we live matters.

The armed populace does prevent certain state depredations: basically, it prevents the state from narrowing the set of people who are living as parasites. This is valuable: it prevents certain kinds of despotism. Instead we get a wide set of people employed by the state, most of whom generate least some value for society (and thus are not purely parasitic).

Being able to fight the state is a good reason for the militia, but it is perhaps the weakest reason. The point of the armed populace is more subtle than that. Arms make it much harder to mobilize the majority politically against a minority. There are several paths blocked by arms.

The majority will typically mobilize gradually, first using disorganized violence against the minority. Mob actions, probably organized at least partially by the state but deniably separate. When the mobs discover it's easy and lucrative, they keep on doing it. Arms cuts off this path, as the minority can defend themselves.

The second path to mobilization is the gradual escalation of state violence against the minority. Again, if the minority retains arms it makes this option much less likely to happen, and moderates it. The state is very solicitous to its agents.

It is for the reasons above (and perhaps others) that victim disarmament always precedes genocide. The latest example is Zimbabwe, following the script right on schedule.

But there's another reason that things are different for us than they were for Germany's Jews. We know about the Holocaust. We have enough data before us to know what they didn't: victim disarmament always precedes genocide. We know this largely because of our horror over their deaths, leading to people looking into genocide and how to prevent it.

If Germany's Jews had known what we know now, they'd have been moving heaven and earth to get out of Germany as soon as they were disarmed. Sadly, most of them didn't even try, or tried much too late, relying on different cultural memories of surviving pogroms.

Leonard, I'd rather go down fighting as well, but that's a pretty small consolation. The widespread perception of the Jews' victimhood saved at least a million lives in Denamrk and plenty more elsewhere. This is a Ghandi theory I suppose, but there are advantages to passive resistance beyond just directly avoiding violence.

The important thing about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, besides the fact that it was one of the few places where the Jews actively resisted their own extermination with proportionate force, it was also PUBLIC. The uprising and its subsequent crushing became well known in allied countries as an example of Nazi brutality, and was used to build public support for the war. The Nazi response pulled out into the open what they were planning on doing in secret at the concentration camps, which for the most part, people in allied countries were totally unaware of until after the camps were liberated. In this respect it was a very important event, and IMHO if more ghettos acted this way, it might have motivated the allied countries more and brought the war to an end sooner (and saved more jews from the gas chamber than died in Warsaw).

Not to be pessemistic, but it's not even clear to me that multiple ghetto uprisings would have sped up allied intervention that much. Extermination of ethnic minorities usually has to get pretty bad before anyone will intervene.

Not to be pessemistic, but it’s not even clear to me that multiple ghetto uprisings would have sped up allied intervention that much. Extermination of ethnic minorities usually has to get pretty bad before anyone will intervene.

not to mention that we waited for Pearl Harbor because the U.S. administration during the early stages of the war thought that the American Public would never go to war to 'save the Jews of Europe from extermination'.

While the Ghetto uprising is noble, like mentioned, it was a doomed battle. I'll reiterate my previous point about minority populace vs. majority populace.

I don’t think that looking at aggregate costs is fruitful for a few reasons. For one thing, the bearer of the major costs in this case is the taxpayer while the beneficiaries are private companies so, for the most part, no one who matters cares about the costs....

oh, yea. duh... slapped back to reality ;-)

Nevertheless, it’s a fair point.

and of course, it doesn't work if they just want you dead...

nice discussing with you.
You as well,

Steve