On the drive into work this morning, I heard a BBC World Service report on the riots in London and other cities in England. When things get rough like this, it provides a little insight into things we take for granted. In particular, I’m thinking of the basic nature of government.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of the bigger thinkers in this arena. I may have not understood them fully when I read them in the first place and less so in the years that have passed since. But, my Cliffs Notes version is that Locke had this vision of government as a social contract where, in a state of nature, people are basically reasonable and tolerant and government is mostly just a way to do things better. Hobbes had a harsher view, where we choose government only because the alternative is worse. The state of nature, Hobbes suggests, is a war of all against all where the life of an individual is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Government is a way of selecting a Leviathan as a sort of super-predator to keep the other predators at bay. You’re at the mercy of the Leviathan, but that’s preferable to hordes of lesser predators.
I tend to think that Hobbes view of the state of nature was the more realistic one. The rioting reinforces this notion. I know there are some who have these cowboy notions that, since they are armed, they can protect their own stuff nicely without the help of the government, thank you very much. But, in the absence of Leviathan, there is just going to be escalation – you and your puny gun is no match for ever larger gangs of armed looters.
That said, government can’t govern efficiently without the bulk of the public being quiescent. In that sense, the consent of the governed is necessary. It seems to me their are two primary paths for obtaining the acquiescence of the governed – overwhelming force by the government, scaring the populace into submission; or, one way or another, making sure the bulk of the governed have a skin in the game — i.e., they benefit from the government and have something to lose if it falls whether it be a loss of protection of their own property; loss of income coming from the government; or something else.
If the government is only protecting the property of other people, and it’s not paying you off; it had best make sure you are afraid, otherwise you’re likely to regard laws and other government dictates with indifference if not disdain.
And, a complete side note on the nature of reporting. That BBC report had the reporter closely interviewing a rioter about why he was doing what he was doing. When the rioter spouted some nonsense, the reporter was quick to press the issue and cross-examine him about seemingly contradictory positions. I could only think that we’d be much better served if reporters were quicker to question the wealthy and powerful in the same fashion.
So what did the rioter say?
What exactly would you like to question “the wealthy and the powerful” about, anyway?
It is interesting that chaos and evil are so close to the surface of a modern, western society. It just reinforces all my fears and prejudices, and makes me cling a little harder to my guns and bible. ;)
When the chips were down, “the man” didn’t come to the rescue. You have no one to rely on but yourself. Maybe those crazy commercials that they run during Beck for survival food aren’t so crazy.
Oh, mainly I’m thinking that politicians pretty regularly go on TV and say things that are false or that wouldn’t hold up under tough questioning. But the hosts out of fear or deference or prior agreement don’t press too much, if at all. Tougher questioning is more likely if the politician is a third-party candidate or if it’s just a regular person saying something stupid.
If you’re just relying on yourself to stop chaos and evil, you’re screwed. Chaos and evil have bigger gangs and more guns.
The kid being interviewed was mostly unintelligible to me because of the accent. I guess lower class English accents are a little more impenetrable for me. But, the interviewer recapped some of the stuff. Seems like the rioter said something about how he was rioting because of the government; then the interviewer pressed him, and he revealed that he had been stealing shoes and that he could’ve probably paid for them if he had wanted to. And the interviewer said something like “you’re nicking shoes you could afford and the government is to blame?” I couldn’t understand the response to that.
“Chaos and evil have bigger gangs and more guns.”
How many guns do you think I have? ;)
Nobody is ever happy when their political nemesis go on TV and are interviewed. You always think the interviewer went soft. You think so when my guys are up there, and I think so when your guys are up there. That is pretty much why I don’t watch the Sunday shows anymore. I already know the sound bites from both sides, I don’t need to hear them some more.
Again, what did the rioter say?
Also, regarding the “bigger gangs and more guns”, do you remember whose stores weren’t looted in the LA riots?
Sorry, we crossposted!
This is probably akin to that old bit about how you don’t have to be faster than the bear chasing you; you just have to be faster than the guy next to you.
Keep in mind that John Locke is a giant smoke monster. Grains of salt, that’s all I’m saying.
This is probably akin to that old bit about how you don’t have to be faster than the bear chasing you; you just have to be faster than the guy next to you.
I don’t think so. Even in LA, it wasn’t like the looters were heavily armed. A couple of Koreans with AR-15s were very effective.
That’s the thing about assault weapons: they are very effective, but they are not cheap. Thus, when you pick one up, you increase your safety exponentially, because the bad guys just can’t afford them.
Well, except when they buy them from Lake County Sheriff officers.
Someone noted that, after the black-on-White mob attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair, the demand for ammunition in Indianapolis put a strain on the supply.