...Consent Of The Governed

I recently saw a point made, in a couple places, that sounded antiquated to the point of barbarism. I was ready to “gut-check” reject it, but after my lizard brain calmed down, my rational brain went “Hmm...”

That point? That women only have an equal place in Western society because men allow it. That men, simply because they are stronger, could choose to take it all away.

Here’s where modern thinking prompts us to react negatively, or to assign value or motive. Both are mistakes. This is merely a conclusion based on available evidence, presented without judgment or advocacy. And it’s hard to refute.

Its veracity is supported not simply by the fact of men’s greater physical strength, but also by all of human history. Show me a single example, anywhere in history, of a society where women imposed dominance over men. There are hundreds-to-thousands of examples of male-dominated societies, by contrast.

Now consider this reality in the context of some of the language of feminism and women’s rights movements. Gender equality is presented as a fight, but in reality it is persuasion. Compelling arguments that society will be better and humanity will advance if women are treated equally are what produced results, not “fights.” Gender equality is a cooperative outcome.

Ponder this in a different context: that of societal governance. We see two forms: coercion and cooperation. Coercive governments impose their will on the masses. Cooperative, representative governments derive their power from the masses, and only have as much power as the masses grant them. Both are rooted in where strength and power lie. A coercive government has the power to take away the rights of the less-powerful. Again, think man vs woman absent third-party involvement. A cooperative government is restrained by the power held by the masses.

Humans are tool-making creatures, and among the tools they have fashioned across our entire existence are tools that multiply our innate strength. That includes weapons. A club is more effective than a fist. An edged weapon is more effective than a club. A weapon that can do damage at a distance is more effective than one that only reaches as far as you can swing it.

When such tools are possessed asymmetrically, the nexus of power shifts.

Over in Iran, mass protests were brutally crushed, with thousands of casualties, by the State and its monopoly on guns. Many have pointed out that the Iranian people, even after the decapitation of the regime in Operation Epic Fury, still face a massive uphill fight, since they don’t have guns.

Here in America, many of the people angry at the Trump Administration for killing the Ayatollah and dozens more of his merry band of monsters would also disarm the American people. They claim they want to do so in the name of public safety, and many of them actually believe it. That they also voice fears of Trump turning the nation into a fascist autocracy tells us that they are not deep thinkers, because the biggest bulwark against any American regime turning on the People is guns in the hands of the People.

Just as a woman with a gun stands a far better chance of fending off a bigger, stronger male attacker, a populace that’s armed has the means to reject a coercive government. And, just as societies that conclude that women should have equal rights function better and are more prosperous than those that don’t, societies where the people have enough power to hold their government accountable work better than those run by authoritarian regimes.

Next time someone argues for disarming the civilian population, ask him if the Iranian people wish they had guns right about now.