The Slippery Slope

[goodboy_mentor]

Found an interesting essay that is very relevant to what is happening in India under guise of reasonable restrictions

Is it possible for a nation to go from wide-open freedom for a civil liberty, to near-total destruction of that liberty, in just a few decades? "Yes," warn many American civil libertarians, arguing that allegedly "reasonable" restrictions on civil liberty today will start the nation down "the slippery slope" to severe repression in the future.[3] In response, proponents of today's reasonable restrictions argue that the jeremiads about slippery slopes are unrealistic or even paranoid.[4]

This Essay aims to refine the understanding of slippery slopes by examining a particular nation that did slide all the way down the slippery slope.(p.400) When the twentieth century began, the right to arms in Great Britain was robust, and subject to virtually no restrictions. As the century closes, the right has been almost obliterated. In studying the destruction of the British right to arms, this Essay draws conclusions about how slippery slopes operate in real life, and about what kinds of conditions increase or decrease the risk that the first steps down a hill will turn into a slide down a slippery slope.

For purposes of this Essay, the reader will not be asked to make a judgement about the righteousness of the (former) British right to arms or the wisdom of current British gun prohibitions and controls. Instead, the object is simply to examine how a right that is widely respected and unrestricted can, one "reasonable" step at a time, be extinguished. This Essay pays particular attention to how the public's "rights consciousness," which forms such a strong barrier against repressive laws, can weaken and then disappear. The investigation of the British experience offers some insights about the current gun control debate in the United States, and also about ongoing debates over other civil liberties. This Essay does not require that the reader have any affection for the British right to arms; presumably, the reader does have affection for some civil liberties, and the Essay aims to discover principles about how slippery slopes operate. These principles can be applied to any debate where slippery slopes are an issue.

Complete essay can be read via following link http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm

[nagarifle]

thanks, it sure is a slippery slope indeed.

[brihacharan]

It appears to be the proverbial "Slip between the Cup & the Lip"
Briha

[goodboy_mentor]

India is a country that has common law legal system and framework since it was a colony of Great Britain. The Indian Constitution also recognizes common law under Article 372 and 374(2) & (3). In countries with an English common law tradition, a long-standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions. Such rights are outlined in historic documents such as Magna Carta 1215, the Declaration of Arbroath 1320, the Bill of Rights 1688/ Claim of Right Act 1689, and as guaranteed by Article IV of the Treaty of Union of 1707, which parliament has no powers to usurp, these being the true ancient and indubitable rights of the British citizen. Even the foundation of US 2nd Amendment is based on common law principles.

Someone may ask why I am mentioning all this? I am mentioning it because, since the legislature of British Crown even in India had no powers to usurp the right to keep and bear arms. If one notes the objects and reasons of all the legislations enacted by legislature of British Crown in India, it clearly mentions about only regulating the "right to keep and use" arms. It means the freedom to "right to keep and use" arms has been passed on(with regulations) to Indians after 1947 and same has been accepted by Indian Constitution.

For further understanding one may read the following link http://www.rkba.ca/legal_basis_for_rkba.html

[Hammerhead]

Noam Chomsky in his shock doctrine told it , you give an inch they take a mile. That's how the word "reasonable" is interpreted.

[goodboy_mentor]

Yes it has been the nature of State power all through the history, to acquire more and more power on one excuse or other under "reasonable" restrictions. Until people decide it is enough and destroy it. Mostly the destruction has been possible only through violence.

Some people argue that violence will never be required to check the State power in India, since it has democracy. Never mind how free or fair democracy is. Any examples in human history where people in democracies were left with no option or as a last resort, compelled to violent destruction of State?

[nagarifle]

i do not believe that their is a true democracy in the world.
what we have is the fear syndrome,
the government fears the people and wants to keep it unarmed, the people fear the government and stay unarmed.

as GBM brings up the Magna Carta, now days the British Government does not want it around and has in practice made it null and void, for it does contain some truly rights of every man, which nowdays under mines the Governments intend to rule. but then thats politics and in any kind of politics there is no right, no justice and for sure only thing that is absolute is to compromise ones value [if they had any in the first place] to stay at the top of the rat race.
There are no rights or wrong just the top job, as the old saying goes, "working class can kiss my A** as i am the boss now"

[chandrashekhar]

i do not believe that their is a true democracy in the world.
what we have is the fear syndrome,
the government fears the people and wants to keep it unarmed, the people fear the government and stay unarmed.

as GBM brings up the Magna Carta, now days the British Government does not want it around and has in practice made it null and void, for it does contain some truly rights of every man, which nowdays under mines the Governments intend to rule. but then thats politics and in any kind of politics there is no right, no justice and for sure only thing that is absolute is to compromise ones value [if they had any in the first place] to stay at the top of the rat race.
There are no rights or wrong just the top job, as the old saying goes, "working class can kiss my A** as i am the boss now"

I agree with you naga.......

[goodboy_mentor]

What you are saying is true. But there are some who argue that in a democracy, RKBA is "never" needed as a last resort against State tyranny. I do understand this is a flawed argument based on flawed assumptions. I am trying to find if there are any examples in human history where people in democracies were left with no option or as a last resort, compelled to violent destruction of State. Read somewhere that Hitler came to power via democracy. Any more examples?

[nagarifle]

first question is how to define democracy?

is like the USA, for the people by the people of the people?
then in reality every dic tator is a chosen leader of his people, or is it when a party presents 3 candidates and the people can take their pick? who wins? the party.

another question also arises , does a government give the people the right to say "hay step down please, right now" and the government does so? if so which kind or which government did so?

Herr Hitler came to power by democracy, he soon demolished it. so that there was no one to say please step down, and stayed in power until death did him apart.

[goodboy_mentor]

Yes agreeing with what you are saying. Let me put it another way. How will you demolish the argument that in a democracy like in India, RKBA will "never" be needed as a last resort against State tyranny.

[nagarifle]

Yes agreeing with what you are saying. Let me put it another way. How will you demolish the argument that in a democracy like in India, RKBA will "never" be needed as a last resort against State tyranny.

"How will you demolish the argument that in a democracy like in India, RKBA will "never" be needed as a last resort against State tyranny"

this can be easily dealt with as long as the armed forces are committed to be with the people and will not go against the people at any cost, regardless of what the democratic government may ask it to do. thus RKBA by citizen per sa is not needed at all.

remember who ever controls the armed forces controls the people.

[goodboy_mentor]

Good one. When tiger tastes human blood he becomes a man eater. Never goes back to his original prey. Similarly when armed forces taste political power they become man eaters. Again RKBA is needed to show them their original place.