Two More Reasons

A couple of days ago I explained why I'm an American Individualist, not an Anarchist. Unlike Eric S. Raymond, I believe the history of 1930s Germany and late 20th century America are different enough that we don't need to be Anarchists.

In my last post I articulated three reasons: First, advocating Anarchy is like advocating unilateral disarmament--your enemies will happily infringe your liberty if you stop protecting it. Second, the Feds got well and truly deterred in the 1990s by events at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City. Their approach to the Montana Freemen bears that out. Third, Mr. Raymond misses a crucial difference between 1930s Germany and the American Republic: the Establishment cause of the 1st Amendment. The Nazis were able to neutralize criticism from the Catholic church in large part because Catholic church officers were confirmed and paid by the government.

Kim du Toit's 4th of July Geopoliticus blog posting was almost uncharacteristically optimistic. I commented that I agreed with his point that we Americans have kept faith with the Founders, protecting and preserving the gift they bequeathed us.

My comment seems to have motivated two other very interesting comments. Ken writes I was

missing one big historical victory for the freedom (i.e., 2nd Amendment side): the successful campaign against Smith & Wesson for its surrender to the Clinton administration over gun control.

It amazes me that this absolutely critical event in history should be so overlooked. This was the turning point in the gun control fight. It convinced both George W. Bush and Albert Gore, Jr., that the 2nd Amendment supporters were the “strong horse,” although both had previously backed gun control.

Ken makes the astute observation that the politicians and industry had their own wake up call after the Smith & Wesson "settlement" caused a measurable marketplace reaction. The politicians saw where the people were going, and any successful American politician must eventually run to the front of the crowd and yell "follow me!" The gun industry saw that their primary market--civilian weapon sales--could dry up in a hurry if a manufacturer accommodating people who wanted to give the state a monopoly on the tools of force.

Windy Wilson points out another key difference between the politics of 1930s Germany and the United States:

Parallel, another point of great divergence from the Weimar/Nazi transition is that during the Weimar period, many if not most of the Germans did not recognize the legitimacy of the Weimar government—not Hindenburg as president, but the entire government, and longed for a return to the pre-WW1 setup (Richard J. Evans, The Rise of the Nazis). That alone would make it easier for someone to overthrow the government as the Nazis essentially did. For all the crybaby “Stolen Election” drivel, I don’t see anyone contesting the legitimacy of the Federal government here in the US.

I think Windy Wilson is referring to this book:

I haven't read it yet, but I've just added it to my Amazon.com wishlist so I don't forget about it.

As an Individualist I'm concerned that the Federal government has too much legitimacy, particularly beyond its core purpose of protecting individual rights. Too many people want its scope of activity to extend much further; see (for example) my criticism of the National Endowment of the Arts. But Windy is right--all the calumny heaped upon George W. Bush was motivated by the perception he stole something important and valuable. The hue and cry would have been considerably less powerful if the prize--the Presidency--was itself considered illegitimate in some way.

Thanks Ken and Windy!