TexasCHLforum.com

In Tragedy and Hope Prof Quigley states:

The medieval period in which the best weapon was usually a mounted knight on horseback (clearly a specialist weapon) was a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. Even when the medieval knight was made obsolete (along with his stone castle) by the invention of gunpowder and the appearance of firearms, these new weapons were so expensive and so difficult to use (until 1800) that minority rule and authoritarian government continued

While I agree with Quigley that widespread ownership of firearms made/makes authoritarian government difficult, in this statement Prof Quigley omits some of the most important events in European History:

Battle of Morgarten 1315

Battle of Sempach 1386

The Battle of Sempach showed that an army of Swiss eidgenossen (“oath brothers”) armed primarily with the pike could defeat chivalric elites in the open field, whether mounted or dismounted.

Britannica

Battle of Näfels 1388 400 Swiss counterattacked an Austrian army of 6,500, routing the Austrians

etc...

In each battle the organized Swiss Militia massacred professional soldiers/knights using either mountainous terrain or their personal weapons to their advantage:

[An] important and enduring discovery was made by the Swiss [at this battle. They] learned that an unarmoured man with a seven-foot (-2.14m) halberd could dispatch an armoured man-at-arms. Displaying striking adaptability, they replaced some of their halberds with the pike, an 18-foot spear with a small, piercing head. No longer outreached by the knight’s lance, and displaying far greater cohesion than any knightly army, the Swiss soon showed that they could defeat armoured men-at-arms, mounted or dismounted, given anything like even numbers. With the creation of the pike square tactical formation, the Swiss provided the model for the modern infantry regiment.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:05 am

Paladin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:23 am Prof. Quigley discusses the foundation of democracy further:

(3) that men have a psychological readiness to accept majority rule in return for those civil rights which will allow any minority to work to build itself up to become a majority.

Men do not have a psychological readiness to accept mob rule (democracy). That’s why this country was established as a Constitutional Republic. Quigley was just another flawed academic.

We both would certainly disagree with Prof. Quigley in certain arguments he makes in his book Tragedy and Hope.

But if we are looking closely at the details of the establishment of the United States, April 19, 1775 was not an act of congress. Continental Congress did not assert independence until July, 1776. The Articles of Confederation were not ratified by any state until December 16, 1777. Maryland did not ratify the Articles of Confederation until February 2, 1781. The US Constitution was not created until September 17, 1787 and was not ratified until June 21, 1788.

I would argue that in actuality that independence was initiated by the militia with their firearms. You can read more here.

A limited central government with representatives for the people, voting rights for land owners, and the Bill of Rights was established long after the shooting started in order to assure due process and individual rights.

With the US Constitution, James Madison and others created a republic. Republic comes from the Latin res publica, which means ‘public thing’–in other words a country ‘owned’ by its people rather than by a monarch. Deriving from Latin, the word reminded educated men such as Madison of republican Rome (ie, Rome before its civil wars), which was so remarkably stable and moderate.

Being a public thing, a republic implicitly contains the element that we would call democracy, but it is understood that this is a representative democracy, in which the people choose representatives who in turn decide the issues of the day in competition with other branches of the government. Governance, in other words, has a basis in the people but is removed from the mob.

Most importantly for Madison, minorities in this republic are protected from majorities. He recognized that the tyranny of majorities is perhaps the greatest threat to freedom.

So yes there are different forms of democracy. Direct democracy and representative democracy. Mob rule and constitutional republics.

I will admit I favor successful constitutions like the Texas Constitution which requires qualified voters to approve amendments.

The Texas Constitution prohibits the creation of state debt, with a few minor exceptions. In order for the state to use its credit to issue state general-obligation bonds, an amendment to the Constitution specifically authorizing issuance of those bonds must be approved.

Voter approval is required for school bonds and taxes. Honestly I think we need to raise the bar on bond elections. I liked Senator Huffines proposed legislation to require a 30 percent voter turnout for any bond election in Texas to be successful. Most such elections currently draw fewer than 10 percent of voters to the polls.

As widespread ownership of firearms is fundamental to democracy and the suppression of authoritarianism, I am a big advocate of not allowing the taxation of firearms, ammunition, and accessories. There is legal support for this:

The Supreme Court has stated that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." That power is clearly an infringement.

A policy of tax exemption has already been upheld for churches. In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), the USSC reasoned:

...the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion... The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other.

Since Prof. Quigley taught a course on the development of civilizations at Georgetown, I think it is safe to assume Bill Clinton knew about Prof. Quigley thoughts on democracy before Clinton signed into law a federal "assault weapons ban" against weapons rarely used in crime.

Prof. Quigley discusses the foundation of democracy further:

The three basic foundations of political democracy... are (1) that men are relatively equal in factual power; (2) that men have relatively equal access to the information needed to make a government's decisions; and (3) that men have a psychological readiness to accept majority rule in return for those civil rights which will allow any minority to work to build itself up to become a majority.
... secrecy, security considerations, and the growing complexity of the issues have served to undermine the second of these.

For a well functioning democracy, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are fundamental.

Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University was a mentor of Bill Clinton and documented his thoughts on the private ownership of military arms and democracy in his book Tragedy and Hope

In Western Civilization, however, the Agricultural Revolution after 1725 raised standards of living, while the Industrial Revolution after 1800 so lowered the cost of firearms that the ordinary citizen of western Europe and of North America could acquire the most
effective weapon existing (the musket). As a result of this, and other factors, democracy came to these areas, along with mass armies of citizen-soldiers.

...In 1830 democracy was growing rapidly in Europe and in America. At that time the development of weapons had reached a point where governments could not get weapons which were much more effective than those which private individuals could get. Moreover, private individuals could obtain good weapons because they had a high enough standard of living to afford it (as a result of the Agricultural Revolution) and such weapons were cheap (as a result of the Industrial Revolution)...As a result, governments in Europe in 1830 hardly dared to oppress the people, and democracy was growing; but in the non-European world by 1930 (and even more by 1950) governments did dare to, and could, oppress their [unarmed] peoples, who could do little to prevent it.

...We have already mentioned that effective weapons which are difficult to use or expensive to obtain encourage the development of authoritarian regimes in any society.

...In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons[i.e. firearms] is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain).

The rest of the book is a fascinating read, but I think one of the most important parts is that widespread ownership of firearms established modern democracy in the West. Firearms are marks of political sovereignty.