Not a Discussion of Gun Control

The gun control argument has heated up again, and this time a certain quote said to be from Thomas Jefferson is in wide circulation. This gives me another chance for pedantic digressiveness, my default mode of evasion these days.

The quote getting wide circulation is this: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Now: did Jefferson actually say that? One can't prove a negative, but it surely smells like a misattribution. It also sounds like a rip-off of the movie V for Vendetta, but let's leave that aside and stick with the founders.

The Monticello website checked into this, here.

Part of the confusion (as appears in the footnotes to the Monticello-site essay) may be that, especially overseas, there is no clarity about Jefferson's role in our founding. Important as he was in 1776, Jefferson was in Paris during the crucial years 1787-88 when a constitution was written and its enactment was debated. He was on the sidelines and, since he had friends on both sides of the ratification fight, he was rather happy to be on the sidelines.

Thus, a scholar apparently working in the Phillipines, referenced by the Monticello essay above, appears to have attributed one of those anti-controller quotations to Jefferson "in The Federalist Papers." That is easy to refute. Jefferson had nothing to do with composing those papers.

Still, that attribution made my inner pedant wonder what those famous papers did have to say about guns. It turns out the subject was addressed once therein. It's in paper #46, generally attributed to James Madison.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

So Madison, writing as Publius, in fact wrote:

"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

That is the gist of the erroneous Jefferson quote. There is a pretty emphatic assertion of the importance to freedom -- the absence of yokes! -- of an armed civilian population, relating that connection to fear on the part of governments. This presumably is what confused our friend from the Phillipines.

Madison wrote the first draft of what became the Constitution, the so-called "Virginia Plan," and was instrumental too in the development of the Bill of Rights thereafter. As "Publius," writing the above, he was writing on behalf not just of himself but of Hamilton and Jay, also critical founders.

Summing up, then, there is good founding-generation authority for the italicized proposition. The more is the pity, then, when people get it wrong.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog