From the New York Times op-ed pages, of all places, confirmation of a number of libertarian ideas, including the axiom that an armed society is a polite society.
These revisionists’ history, unlike the one now fashionable in academia, is not a grim saga of settlers exploiting one another, annihilating natives and despoiling nature. Nor is it like the previously fashionable history depicting the settlers as heroic individualists who tamed the frontier by developing the great American virtue of self-reliance.
The Westerners in this history survived by learning to get along, as Terry Anderson and Peter Hill document in their new book, “The Not So Wild, Wild West.” These economists, both at the PERC think tank in Montana, argue that their Western ancestors were usually neither heroic enough to make it on their own nor strong enough to take it away from others.
Always gratifying to see the NYT take a slap at the PC bilge being ladled out in institutions of higher learning, of course, but what is perhaps more interesting is the nod given to the voluntary ordering of civil society on the frontier.
Roger McGrath, a historian who studied dozens of Western mining camps and towns, found a high rate of homicide in them mainly because it was socially acceptable for young, drunk single men to resolve points of honor by fighting to the death. But other violence wasn’t tolerated, he said.
“It was a rather polite and civil society enforced by armed men,” Dr. McGrath said. “The rate of burglary and robbery was lower than in American cities today. Claim-jumping was rare. Rape was extraordinarily rare – you can argue it wasn’t being reported, but I’ve never seen evidence hinting at that.”
One suspects that the presence of substantial numbers of prominently displayed large caliber handguns would have a certain pacifying effect. I submit that this would appear paradoxical only to animists or people infected with an irrational fear of inanimate objects.
The HBO series ‘Deadwood’ is claimed to be a fairly realistic depiction of a gold rush camp in the Black Hills. That is exactly what it shows, the ordering of the society, and I’ve enjoyed the libertarian bent.
Frontier culture was largely shaped by the Scotch-Irish culture in the US, which itself derived from Ulster and Scottish Borders areas in English and Scotland. It’s also related to what’s been called “Jacksonianism.” (I recommend David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed” and Walter Russell Mead’s “Special Providence.” Also Nisbett and Cohen’s “Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South,” which has an interesting discussion of how herding, as opposed to farming, leads to greater emphasis on self-protection and honor in a culture, as one’s entire wealth can be stolen easily.)
Property crime and crime among strangers were (and remain) in these sorts of places very rare. “Crimes of passion” and retribution for slights of honor and other things are quite high, though. The two things are related. Someone who lacks honor does have to be dealt with.
Along the lines of ordered society in the old west, how many people have heard ot he Gunfight at the OK corral, but don’t know that the Earp’s and Holliday were tried for murder a month later?
Judge Spicer’s decision(Link)
Wolcott goes to town on this nonsense:
“…the state of Illinois must be a far more polite society than the nations of Japan, Norway, and Great Britain put together since there were 728 gun-related homicides in Illinois in 2002, a total with which those so-called “civilized” countries simply couldn’t compete.”
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/06/glenn_reynolds.php
Sue wrote:
The HBO series ‘Deadwood’ is claimed to be a fairly realistic depiction of a gold rush camp in the Black Hills. That is exactly what it shows, the ordering of the society, and I’ve enjoyed the libertarian bent.
Yes I enjoy the pioneer ‘libertarian spirit’ of Deadwood but please don’t tell me that mid/late 19th Centurty settlers spat expletives out then in good ‘ole 21st Century South Central Los Angeles style. I switched over from the new series of Deadwood after hearing our very own Ian McShane utter over 10 f-words in under 15 seconds. Deadwood now sounds far more like a collection of actors repeating the words of a scriptwriter with a very bad case of Tourette’s Syndrome, than a good 1876-period drama series.
John, thank you so much! That is absolutely astounding in so many aspects, not the least of which is the measured and literate articulation of the justice of the peace. And the fair-mindedness. And the fact that everyone didn’t go off and continue their lives as normal after the killings, but that there was an official enquiry, with witnesses statements taken, that took some considerable time to unwind.
That was a revelation!
The authors have been published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Check it out:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
The settlers weren’t heroic, please? A better example is the Great Northfield Raid. The population of these towns were metrosexuals but tough men familiar with firearms and ready to stand up for their rights. When the Cole-Younger gand rode in to what they though would be easy picking the men of the town shot these men to pieces.
Yeah the settlers weren’t heroic one can imagine the citizenry of a similar town taking on a gang in the US today. I don’t think so.
Well, the quicker we can settle other planets, the moon or any old piece of rock or indeed steel the better.
Think of all the benefits – the socialists can all f*** off to establish nirvana (which the rest of us can call ‘going to hell in a spaceship’), the ‘incorrigible’ amongst the prison population can be plonked down somewhere far away to suprise us all when their grandchildren come back mining magnates, and a certain strain of Malthusianism will be forever buried.
Not to mention those who think that frontiers are an essential spur to progress and innovation.
Interesting to note that firearms are not a necessary part of this “civil society” however. Talking of mining camps, think of the Yukon, archtypical mining camp, immortalised by Robert Service in “The Shooting of Dan McGrew”. However sidearms were not permitted in Dawson, one had to have a licence to carry a revolver on the street, and few licences were issued. Not a single murder took place in Dawson in 1898, at the height of the goldrush. The mounties effectively policed the town and confiscated revolvers if found unlicensed. Dawson also had a low crime rate, and was considered safe enough to leave cabins unlocked.
Interesting also to note that there was a crime of “Using vile language”, Deadwood fans take note.
Rape was extraordinarily rare
Lots of men, few women. The Market in action.
Treat ’em nice, or be pulled up short by 50 other guys.
So an armed society is a polite society?
Then imagine how polite a society where everyone was armed with their own individual thermonuclear weapons and the means of delivery would be!
If that idea sounds like suicidal nonsense, then why is a society where everyone carries a gun any less so?
What utter nonsence this ‘case’ for arming society is.
If politeness is the ultimate goal, I’m sure Stalin achieved the same result without having to arm everyone. He had the NKV, and in a police state politeness can be the difference between life and death. Jee… that’s just like in an armed society.
Does that tell you anything?
If that idea sounds like suicidal nonsense, then why is a society where everyone carries a gun any less so?
Why do you think that such a society is suicidal nonsense?
Possibly because they generally have significantly higher murder rates than societies which don’t make gun ownership so easy?
EG
Why do you think that such a society is suicidal nonsense?
Is it really necessary to explain why a society where every individual had their own atomic weapons would be suicidal nonsense?
Jeez, if I myself was so ignorant and brainless that I needed someone to tell me exactly how nuclear weapons differed from handguns, I certainly wouldn’t be shouting that fact from the rooftops as if it were something to be proud of.
You might think you can induce us to say gun ownership must be ‘suicidal nonsense’ because of your equating guns with nukes, but the sad truth is the only person to whom that ridiculousness makes sense, is you. No-one else buys into it. And it’s a bit too obvious that you’re trying to manipulate people into ‘agreeing’ with you, which guarantees failure.
You’d do well to study our Euan’s technique, because although he is equally as resistant to good sense as you (he evidently thinks Switzerland has a higher murder rate than the UK), he’s far more artful, hence more ‘successful’ in terms of staying power. You, on the other hand, are just a stray, hysterical loon.
What am I thinking? I’m giving advice to Samizdata’s blogroaches on how to be more effective blogroaches.
It does. Go check it out for yourself.
EG
Possibly because they generally have significantly higher murder rates than societies which don’t make gun ownership so easy?
Not true, at least in the US. Cities that either make it extremely difficult (Chicago, NYC), or outright ban (Washington DC) firearms generally have higher murder rates than the US average.
I notice how you don’t actually give the comparative murder rates. Nor do you provide any links to same. No, you blandly state ‘Go and check it out for yourself’ as if making a ‘cutting’ remark will dupe people into thinking you’ve shown me to be foolish. With what? You give no figures. You give no links. Incidentally, I remember the last time you offered a link in support of an argument you made, looking up certain court proceedings at a website, I found that those certain cases were not even kept on the site! Such is the way you work. You can only make an appearance of being a knowledgable person. You can’t actually manage to bring the content to back it up*.
You might have got me on a technical error, I admit, when I hastily said ‘murder rates’ when I was thinking of ‘higher total amount of murders’. There it is true that the UK does have a far higher total amount of murders than Switzerland – according to Nationmaster, we had 850 murders in 2000 while Switzerland had only 69. (Check that out for yourself.)
Which proves that gun ownership does not inevitably lead to societies becoming more violent.
*This is what I meant, JEM, when I spoke of how artful Euan was.
Pick an average city phonebook, put a star (OK, a daisy) next to JEM’s address and ever other utopoian gasbag that is willing to put their hides were their opinions are- go back in a year and count the crimes.
The short legged sheep always go down first. This fact is a small yet meaningful consolation to sane people in the face of such rationalistic and navel gazing blather…
You anti-gun people are a bunch of idiots. Plain and simple.