My View on Civil Society

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the “militia” movements and the comparison to the police response in Ferguson, MO. I’m sure there are a lot of other comparisons to make, but I was living in St. Louis, MO at the time so this one is personal for me. Why did the government respond the way it did to those civil (mostly non-violent) protests, and how should we as a society handle what we perceive as injustice, or inequity.

The idea of the commons in our civil society, is breaking down. The resources we jointly need to succeed should be ours, let me say that again OURS. When there is a single resource that is needed by all, it is the government that must step in to protect it and preserve the rights of the commons. Extending the idea from land, it is straightforward to see that education, police protection, access to basic services (today this should even extend to the internet), and even the right to speech, are common resources. Denial of access by one group or another to these resources, I’m certain, would impact my life (and yours). That is why I rely on protection from the government (in the case of the United States of America, one formed by the people) for protection of these common resources that enable me to succeed.

The rules that govern the protection of the commons isn’t a formed by some cabal in a democracy, we the people form the rules. Theoretically, we all have a voice (although if you’re a fan of Mark Twain, or keep up with current events you might realize that some have more voice than others). The way to modify our protections isn’t by force, it is through discourse. Change in a democracy often takes time, but it is best done through argument (and hopefully with facts vs. personal attacks). This is something the Black Lives Matter movement got exactly right, arguing with facts via protest. Protest is a fundamental form of exercising your voice, the more people, the larger the weight of the argument. The “militia” movement has taken a rather different approach. They’ve used force of arms to amplify their tiny voice. This is an affront to our democracy. We should all be ashamed that this has happened in the first place, and that we let it continue as long as it has.

Since the militia movement loves to use history as a justification, how would George Washington have handled the militia in Oregon (and previously Nevada)? Judging by his actions during the Whiskey Rebellion, he would have called up the national guard (or in his day, he would have mustered the militia and called up the regular army) to quickly quell the insurrection. That’s exactly what we’re talking about, an insurrection, these people believe that they can do whatever they want because they have rifles. That is not how our democracy works. George Washington knew that the union can survive only under the rule of law (and in the Whiskey Rebellion case, taxes). When the government (of the people) allows laws to be re-written through force, the union is broken.

So why the difference in response between Ferguson, MO and Oregon? That is a totally different issue. I wish I could say it was simply due to geography and situation, but that would be ignoring the lens of history, which must surely be on the minds of many. Ferguson was a relatively non-violent protest, which evoked a massive para-military response. In Oregon we see para-military militia (many probably former military, all fairly well armed), but the government in response is almost impotent. Is it that all those un-armed protests weren’t quite as scary as these guys in Oregon? Doubtful. So what has caused the gap in response? I can’t say for sure, but the optics seem very clear, and the message it sends is not a good one.

We must protect our rights to the commons. Civil society must provide access to all people, and when the government response fails us (as it has in both these cases) then we must exercise our right to speak out (with voice and pen, not weapons/force/intimidation).

Thanks for reading, my early morning caffeine fueled rant!