![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Private Militias and Failed States
Dec. 3rd, 2014 08:05 amWaste not, want not, so I shan't waste this gem on an away game. Over at Simberg's Flying Circus, they ask why shouldn't every Tom, Dick, and Harry form a private militia and show up to help out at protests? Herewith, my answer:
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 [from Simberg's linked article] ”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.
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 [from Simberg's linked article] ”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.