11-06-2021, 01:51 AM
(11-05-2021, 09:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see what you're saying, here, but we also must keep in mind that modern conservatism has moved far from the idea of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of individual liberty and is more akin to the libertarian values of today. I tend to view this all through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas. The original dilemma being freedom v. societal order, and the modern being freedom v. equality.
Classical liberalism, or libertarianism of today, tends to fall in the freedom category for both. They oppose government intervention to promote either order or equality. Conservatism, though, favors government intervention to promote societal order. This is where my statement that gun control is inherently a conservative ideal comes into play. Gun control is about control, about order. One the other end, though, modern liberalism favors government intervention to promote equality, but not order. We know that gun control policies are not equitable, so the modern liberal take should not be in favor of these measures.
I find it interesting, though, that we discuss Marx and gun control without bringing up the fact that his position was for the entire proletariat to be armed and organized. That the people should be ready for revolution and any attempt to disarm the people should be met with resistance, including force. Marx understood the history of disarming the population so that the ruling class could oppress the people.
Thanks for the response.
First a note on M: If we consider Marx's body of work as a whole, where and whether violence was an option for revolutionaries depended upon conjunctural analysis of social forces. E.g., in his letter to Kugelman (April 12, 1871), he suggests that a peaceful socialist revolution might occur in the U.S., given the U.S. lacked the power state bureaucracy and standing military of European powers like France, and Germany. He thought violent rebellion a "stupidity" in GB, where the existing parliamentary system allowed non-violent paths to control of the state. He did support the violent but doomed Paris Commune, but continued rethinking conditions under which revolution might be successful, and what form it might take. Remember that in his writing on the Commune, The Civil War in France, he concludes that the proletariat cannot simply seize and use existing state machinery. All forms of state power are suspect.
I'm going to think some more about your linkage of gun control to conservatism via the concept of "order," before I respond to it. Remember though, that I am historicizing a specific, liberal conception of the possessive individual, and linking that to U.S. conceptions of gun control and freedom to own and carry. Granting that "the people are sovereign" etc., and retain a right to revolt under certain circumstances, that doesn't sufficiently explain why so many American see "freedom" in a proliferation of guns and open carry, and no clash therein with the freedom and safety of others. You even link gun ownership to political equality. Another point I would like to think through. I don't find that convincing at all, but must examine the claims more deeply.
Like Hobbes, I am more fearful of what happens when the state cannot maintain its monopoly on legal violence.
Like you, I grew up around hunters. Every family had guns, and pickups had gun racks. And yet, back in the 50s and 60s, I don't recall anyone open carrying handguns, or wanting to, or thinking "freedom" depended on the right to do that. No militias in MT or SD, where I grew up. No one carrying military style weapons to political meetings. People bought military weapons, like my father's 1917 Springfield armory 30.06, but then converted them to hunting weapons with shortened stocks and scopes. According to my schooling back then, the only place where armed vigilantes helped keep order was in the South.
