The State Should Not Have a Monopoly on Force
Reading Peter Hitchens’s good A Brief History of Crime, I learned that in medieval England citizens were expected to own arms and use them against criminals. The 1688 Bill of Rights included a right to bear arms, which must have been the model for the similar provision in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Attempts to regulate guns were made in the 19th century but were defeated.
Much more important, though, is something I realized from reading this: ONLY RECENTLY HAVE STATES CLAIMED A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE. Such a monopoly is not only not the essence of a state, but is a modern anomaly. What has been common, rather, is the requirement that people, and rulers too, use force only as prescribed by law. Someone could stab someone trying to murder him, or stab the murderer as he tried to escape. There was not a difference between citizen and policeman. Indeed, there were no policemen. People were supposed to help in the hue and cry to catch a criminal who attacked their neighbors.
This is completely sensible. Why should we care whether it is a policeman who shoots a fleeing criminal as opposed to a victim shooting him? Or a bystander? The effect is the same– justice is done. Of course, if someone shoots his neighbor for no reason, that is a crime, and he should be prosecuted. But that has nothing to do with shooting criminals.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
I think the best result from such thinking is that the common citizen would, out of necessity, be more familiar with the law thus enabling him to judge rightly but also to defend himself in a court of law (which of course, would still exist).