In the United States, police forces exist as a public service, not as a replacement for civil society. As the Supreme Court has made clear, police are under no obligation to help or to protect you. They can choose to, certainly. But they do not have to. And, even if they did have to, it would still be the case that they could not possibly be everywhere at once.
Nor are they intended to be. For much of American history, there was no serious distinction drawn between the citizenry, the militia, the military, and the police. Instead, there were a few elected or appointed roles — watchmen, constables, sheriffs, etc. — and then there was the people at large. Those people were expected to bandy together and to help one another, to be responsible for their own protection, and to help to keep the peace — both under the control of authorities and of their own volition. When standing police forces came into being, Americans did not give up this system; they added to it.
Which is to say that there is no reason whatsoever for us to abandon either our penchant for self-reliance or our preference for volunteerism simply because we have a series of professional police forces running in parallel to civil society. Nor, for that matter, should our out-of-control licensing systems and incomplete self-defense protections be permitted to become an impediment to our security. I’m no great fan of Oathkeepers as an outfit. But if they wish to help out during a protest, so be it. If a collection of black Ferguson residents wishes to protect a white-owned gas station from looters, so be it. If the Huey P. Newton Gun Club wants to march around Dallas protecting black citizens, so be it. If a spontaneous, unlicensed group of Korean Los Angelenos wishes to take up arms and protect their property from rioters, so be it. The United States represents a collection of free people who elect to have police forces — not the other way around. So some of our actors don’t much like the government. Who cares?
People who think that the country is a government with people, instead of people with a government.
As Glenn notes, this seems ripe for a federal civil-rights law, if protecting yourself and your property is a civil right (as it always has been under English common law). It would be amusing to see if Obama would sign it.
[Afternoon update]
An update on the Oath Keepers in Ferguson, from Jesse Walker.
There is that which is legal; then there is that which is right.
That which is legal is determined by people that have interests other than right.
That which is right is the higher authority even when it comes into conflict with law… or as the apostles put it: “We must obey God as ruler, rather than men.”
Although “consent of the governed” is an impossible fiction it is based on a sound principle. The people have moral authority that is superior to government authority which in truth is just another sort of mob rule. Mobs (including govt.) are a means of sidestepping responsibility. People understand, “thou shall not steal” on an individual basis but justify it when done by a mob as taxation (by any name.)
It’s understandable that police want a monopoly. It’s not understandable that people would ever allow it.
This also relates to claiming property in the solar system but too many people think government blessings are required for that as well when not claiming property is easy to show as being evil (See Rand’s earlier post on the Pilgrims.)
I’ve noted that the people who view with the most alarm anti-government militias (and are they actually “anti-government,” or “anti-tyranny”?) are invariably the biggest, most authoritarian State-f*ckers. Makes you wonder what they actually fear. I like to tell them, “Stop pushing tyranny, and most of these militias you fear will go away.”
Why not? Two reasons, tactical and conceptual.
The tactical reason is simple – how are the various militias and police supposed to decide who’s a “legitimate” militia and who’s a protester / rioter? What prevents the demonstrators in Ferguson from declaring themselves a militia?
Which leads to the conceptual. The US Constitution talks about one, singular militia, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, …of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (Article 1, Section 8). The Federalist Papers talk of one militia subdivided into state units.
The idea that there can only be one legitimate military force in a nation goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). It was a concept well understood at the drafting of the Constitution. Putting down private militias (usually under the control of nobles) had been the course of history for two centuries prior to our Revolution.
We have a name for places that have multiple private militias. We call them “failed states.” A place where any Tom, Dick, Abdul, Omar, or Harry can create their own militia leads to the situation we see in Somalia or Iraq. Hitler and Mussolini’s Brownshirts were both private militias.
The idea that people could and should volunteer to assist police is fine. The idea that the “Huey P. Newton Gun Club wants to march around Dallas protecting black citizens” is not.
The statement ” For much of American history, no serious distinction drawn between the citizenry, the militia, the military, and the police” is completely historically inaccurate. When the sheriff needed extra manpower, the first thing he did was deputize, or make police out of, volunteers. The militia was an actual unit which held drills, had officers, and was organized.
And the Admiral confirms what I wrote! Nice.
And Bilwick refuses to address the substance, relying instead on name-calling.
That’s because you prove – all by yourself – Bilwick’s point. There’s no improving on your own destruction of your own positon.
I didn’t read past your point about there only being one Militia. At that point, it was evident that your whole argument was based on a deeply flawed premises.
The Militia Act of 1903 defines what is and is not a Militia and it mentions more than one. That you chose to ignore the controlling piece of US code on the subject at hand speaks volumes.
I didn’t read past your point about there only being one Militia.
Ditto to that and to the rest of Puckett’s comment.
Yet the very first line of the Militia Act of 1903 (PDF here) says ” That the militia shall consist of…” – singular “militia.” That singular militia is then subdivided based on training and readiness.
“Yet the very first line of the Militia Act of 1903 (PDF here) says ” That the militia shall consist of…” – singular “militia.” That singular militia is then subdivided based on training and readiness.
Actually, that “singular” militia is divided into two militias (militiae? militii?), further in that sentence: “…shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such
other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective
States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.”
The language states that it is divided into two “classes”, but the non-organized(non-National Guard) members are collectively known as the “Reserve Militia”, per the very same statute.
Just in case there was confusion.
I find it helpful to read laws in full sentences and entire texts, just to ensure that I’m not missing context or specific language. YMMV.
“The tactical reason is simple – how are the various militias and police supposed to decide who’s a “legitimate” militia and who’s a protester / rioter? What prevents the demonstrators in Ferguson from declaring themselves a militia?”
Like most Statist F*ckers you gave less than a picosecond’s thought to the Constitution and the rule of law before you wrote:
You judge them by their actions. Are they committing a crime? Your question suggests you’d like to riddle someone wiht bullets just on the *looks* of them…judge them by looks ot their actions…how bigoted and racist and infantile of you. By your logic the Black Panther who stood outside the voting booth in combat clothes and who gave menacing looks to the white voters entering the polling place should have been gunned down right then and there?
No? You don’t think he should have been gunned down? Sounds like inconsistency to me.
You don’t gun someone down because he’s walking the streets with a gun (unless that’s a crime in that location).
Not to mention the fact that it would be a whole lot easier to discern who is protecting and who is destroying (not that it’s really hard) if the Statist-F*ckers such as yourself hadn’t worked for the last 40-50 years stripping responsibility and control from citizens and telling them to place it in the hands of the Loving State.
When I wrote:
“You don’t gun someone down because he’s walking the streets with a gun (unless that’s a crime in that location).”
I did’t mean to imply that gunning them down SHOULD be done if carrying open is illegal. They should be arrested.
I didn’t say anybody should be gunned down. I said friendly fire happens, even in military environments where significant time, money and effort is spent to avoid it.
By your logic the Black Panther who stood outside the voting booth in combat clothes so now he’s a militia member defending a voting place? At the time I was told differently.
“What prevents the demonstrators in Ferguson from declaring themselves a militia?”
Nothing. If you read the articles linked, the Oathkeepers suggested that that happen. Maybe the minority of minorities shopkeeper that Brown robbed would have been defended by the community rather than made a victim by the community. Aside from the labels used, are not these guys doing the same thing as the Oathkeepers?
Why is it that black men with guns defending a white person’s store is lauded by pretty much everyone while white men with guns defending black stores draws condemnation from Democrats? Is it because they have a higher percentage of black members than Seattle has residents? Is it because the group in question challenges the racist stereotypes Democrats inculcate in their followers?
“We have a name for places that have multiple private militias. We call them “failed states.””
You are thinking warlords trying to conquer whatever place they live in. Ya. we would have a failed state if we had Mad Max, Middle Eastern, or communist style warlords waging an active revolution to overthrow the government. But it turns out we don’t need warlords of militias for this to be a problem. The Democrat activists have once again taken to the streets in the name of communist revolution. Not sure why Democrats are so invested in their relationships with communists and socialists or why the media doesn’t call them out on it. It is like being proud to have NAZI’s in your party.
“The tactical reason is simple – how are the various militias and police supposed to decide who’s a “legitimate” militia and who’s a protester / rioter?”
The ones rioting are rioters, the ones defending are militia/security.
Why do you persist in constructing these elaborate strawmen that burn at the slightest application of sunlight when exposed to the real world?
“The idea that there can only be one legitimate military force in a nation goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).”
It is 2014, and that concept is now dead. Look! I could do “Whig History” too!
Possibly OT question.
I was shown a phone picture of a protester with a sign reading, ” A mother shouldn’t have to worry about her sons’ life every time he robs a convenience store.”
Does anyone know whether this is real, or more likely Photoshop?
Their was a group that used to infiltrate other groups with signs like that. This could be one of those operations. Wish I’d thunk it.
Photoshop. Snopes posted it, along with the message from the photoshopper admitting that it was ‘shopped out of frustration with the situation.
Yeah, photoshopping gets the point across w/o risking life among a violent mob. The fact that we might even consider it as someone’s actual sentiment is telling.
The concept of “militia” is very poorly understood, even by its ostensive proponents. It is NOT a military organization, or even an organization of any kind. The legal definition is:
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
So it isn’t surprising that the Constitution refers to a singular “militia,” since there is only one in the United States (the same way there is only one “media,” even though both words are plural and refer to a collection of things).
By the same token, Article 1 Section 8 gives the government the power to raise Armies (plural) and establish and support a Navy. Those are not separate from “the militia.” Armies and the the Navy are made up of “the militia.” Further, “the militia” may be “raised” on a large scale to suppress insurrections, fight invaders, etc.
The militia may also organize themselves to fight an emerging tyranny. James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, made it very clear in his other writings that preserving the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms was intended as a defense against tyranny. The militia, those able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms even against the government.