Thoughts of Today: 2011
The Warrior Society
Initial Thoughts
Sheridan Lardner
January 2011
(I had initially written a piece about Borders on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue and its recent closure. While I lament the store’s departure, and intend on posting that article soon, this article is summoned by the Tucson shooting of January 8. It brought clarity to these thoughts, and although it took longer than a week to write them down, they are true to me.)
This article comes early. In months and years to come, I will rewrite it. Recent events, however, compel me to release these thoughts now, not later. This is a sort of “I said it first” moment, even if it is a bit stillborn.
The Warrior
A warrior is a woman or man who upholds and defends an ideal through martial training and expression. The warrior’s pronoun of choice in this article will be “his”, but it could easily be replaced with “hers” at any time. Anyone in modern society is born with the potential to be a warrior, although personal inclination might turn them down a different path. These are not quite the warrior-elite of Feudal Japan and Europe, nor the warrior-ascetic of Himalayan mountaintop legend. The modern warrior is the humble adventurer of high fantasy, the home defender, the hero by choice and need, and the armed protector. Birthright, money, and ability alone do not grant warrior status. Passion, desire, and dedicated training mark the modern warrior. But most importantly, we classify the warrior as one who holds an ideal above all others, a philosophy that guides their actions and life in all things (naturally, an ideal that also must conform to John Stuart Mill’s theory of liberty: an ideal which does not impede the rights of any other, unless that other is himself an impeder).
Violence and the Firearm Debate
There are few warriors in our 21st Century society. There is, however, plenty of violence, and violence is ostensibly one of the elements that warriors deal in. Whether in the alleys of Gangland, amongst the cinderblocks and inspirational posters of school, or in front of the neighborhood supermarket, we face death that should not exist in such a time of peace and prosperity. Brigands had their place in the past ages of cold and ignorance, but they are not welcome today. And yet they persist. Oh yes, it is a worldwide problem, and globally, it needs address. But Americans must follow the Good Book’s advice to remove our own beam before taking out our neighbor’s thorn. In that spirit, this nation of go-getters and action-takers has courted a love affair with a simple philosophy. If you present sufficient deterrence to violent offenders, they will not be violent and break laws. This legalistic notion goes back millennia. It is older than English Common Law, monarchal codes, Roman republican decree, and the statutes of city states. It is perhaps older than the two stone tablets that historically originated this trend, but we need not go back so far. All that matters is that legal deterrence, in the form of peer punishment, ostracism, and direct opposition, has existed throughout human history.
In this relatively young country, we have our own unique perspective on deterrence, in addition to all those more universal ones about laws, police, and courts. Our “American” position is widely discussed, and whether you passionately defend it or adamantly oppose it, you know it well: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We Americans have the right to maintain our freedom through weapons, specifically firearms. By the late 20th Century, this evolved into the politically charged issues of citizen legal rights to gun ownership and gun carrying (concealed or open carry). With the shootings at Killeen, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Tucson wedged firmly in our political understanding, the debate looms menacingly with no sign of cessation. On one side, gun control: “American gun laws are too liberal and give bad guys access to the guns that they use to commit heinous crimes. Make it harder for the bad guys to get them, and punish them worse when they do.” On the other side, gun rights: “American gun laws are not liberal enough, and the good guys do not have necessary access to guns for personal protection, because the bad guys are going to have the guns anyway.” On both sides, the common thread is deterrence of those who would impede rights and harm citizens.
Enter the Warrior
This is not an article about firearms, because the warrior does not need one. This is an article about an alternate form of deterrence that exists independently of guns. I want to move ahead of the gun debate: not “past” it, because it will still be very much alive. I merely offer a suggestion that tries to leap over the squabbling politicos and into a future where we might have a real solution to crime. Remember, deterrence is the turning point of most legal positions, and the American firearm philosophy is no exception: bad guys are unlikely to commit crimes (read: they are deterred) when their victims might have guns of their own.
A warrior society has its own form of criminal deterrence, one that circumvents most of the rhetoric and problems with the gun-rights debate. This deterrence arises from two innate warrior qualities; 1) their martial skill and training; 2) their courage and initiative. I will explain how a society in which there are at least a small percentage of active warriors, criminals are deterred far more than any reasonable concealed carry or firearm possession laws could hope to accomplish.
The Warrior’s Martial Skill as Deterrence
Criminals seek victims, not opponents. They do not desire a fight, but rather a quick and easy prey. Like all predators, the combat before the kill pales compared to reaping the kill’s benefits. It is an economic analysis for them: which target provides them the most benefit at the least cost. A warrior society makes this criminal calculation impossible. Any potential “prey” is also potentially a warrior, and the warrior makes for a fine opponent but a poor victim. On the most basic level, the warrior is trained to fight and win. This may be through a variety of unarmed combat styles, legal weapons carried on their person, or self-defense techniques honed through training. Some warriors might decide to carry a proverbial Samurai standard on their back, whether a bokken at their side or an aura of humble confidence. Others will not, and the criminal hordes will have no method to determine who is prey and who is warrior.
Entertain a scenario. Two opportunistic men hunt robbery victims on a weekend night. They target a couple, man and woman, in their 20s walking back from an evening date. These urban bandits confront them with a gun and a knife, demanding wallets. But this is not prey. These are warriors. Training for years, this couple has passed the time-honored martial tests: undergoing stress drills, reaction training under pressure, conditioning to strikes, and refinement of technique to muscle memory. In the flight or fight duality, they consciously make the choice, rather than letting their untamed body make it for them.
The knifeman has brandished his blade too close to the woman, and she engages without hesitation, locking in the knife, blasting for his neck and temple, and incapacitating the target. The gunman, initially satisfied to keep his pistol tucked in his waistband and raise his shirt in intimidation, now realizes that he must draw. The other male warrior jams the draw, short-circuits with a barrage of strikes, and reaps down his opponent before the gunman can fire. Man and woman secure the offending weapons and summon legal assistance.
Woe to those assailants in such lopsided confrontation! Word would spread of these deeds, through the varied media outlets that thrive in this century. This word would be the word of panic to the robbers, rapists, and rascals of our time. If for every twenty or even fifty such incidents, the attackers met with overwhelming and decisive force, the criminal calculus would fall apart.
Why does this differ from the firearm argument? For many reasons: first, guns can often provide incentive to target a gun owner. It has been found (notably through the works of Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook) that criminals target homes and victims with guns because such guns are a lucrative bounty. Even the police find their homes burgled in search of these prizes. You cannot steal the martial technique of a warrior. It can only be used against you.
Second, it takes tremendous resolve and clarity to deploy a gun in a hostile situation. It takes even more to fire it lethally. Criminals know this, and trust that their own resolve (a predator’s tenacity) will triumph against most firearm-carrying civilians. They are, after all, civilians! If that civilian actually possessed the killer’s instinct and the soldier’s reaction, then they would probably not be a civilian walking down the street, but in a more combative role. Third, hesitation, brought about by adrenaline, fear, and uncertainty can paralyze even a dedicated gun carrier. The warrior does not have this freeze. Just by virtue of training and developing their skills, they have necessarily overcome paralysis brought about in battle (assuming their training was proper). Fourth, martial techniques can be as lethal or as nonlethal as the warrior wants. The only way to make a gun less lethal is to aim at a non-vital target, which is effectively training to miss. Warriors do not second-guess the use of lethal force against another human, because they do not need to be lethal in the first place.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a shooter practices at a range on paper targets. Firing at a real person is, in the vast majority of cases, outside of their training. Warriors, however, practice on other bodies at all speeds, including the frantic pace of real confrontations. This gives them a third decisive advantage in using their force in a way that the firearm-carrier does not inherently enjoy. Yes, some gun users are capable of this, but the majority of concealed carry permit holders in an armed society would lack this battlefield training.
Thus, the warrior’s martial skill gives him distinct advantages over criminals. This acts as dangerous deterrence for criminals. The predator does not want to risk approaching a target who has trained almost explicitly to beat him.
The Courageous Hero as Deterrence
Even more than martial ability, the warrior’s courage and initiative in battle make him a dangerous adversary to criminals. By “courage”, I mean his willingness to risk his own body and being in the face of dangerous and frightening challenges. This is the archetypical bravery that warrior heroes have upheld throughout history. The dragon slayer and downtrodden champion face adversity with sword aloft and chin high. So too does the modern warrior view conflict today.
It is part of his ideology and his very being to accept the righteous battle. This is not bloodlust. This is not gloryseeking. He is not a duelist who looks for fights to prove his own strength. The warrior is compelled to plunge against wrongs, and that includes criminals and their actions. When a warrior sees the robber or other wrongdoer (violent wrongdoer, I should say), he is compelled to engage. Courage, borne of his training and dedication to the warrior skillset, leaves him no other choice. This is not undertaken recklessly, although one could certainly argue that it is stupid and arrogant to engage criminals in such a cavalier fashion. But that is what the warrior is: the modern knight and cavalier, and he must engage if that villain presents himself.
This provides an even stronger deterrent for criminals than just martial skill. The courageous warrior stands against the idea of “wrong” as a standalone evil. They will not only engage a criminal because they are being threatened, but also because that criminal is philosophically and ideologically opposed to their moral compass. As any student of history or current events knows, such a dedicated idealist makes for a relentless foe. Warrior training instills courage and right-upholding into its practitioners, and they carry that with them in the world. Criminals and wrong-doers must contend with this relentless pursuit of the unjust at every turn, making their business even more difficult. Prey is necessarily cowardly, and the warrior is inherently an anti-coward.
Initiative makes the warrior even more dangerous to the criminal villain. By “initiative” I mean the independent involvement of a warrior in external affairs. The warrior takes the initiative to involve himself in any and all wrongdoing that he encounters. He cannot help but uphold his ideology and apply his skills to assist those in need. Combined with his courage in the face of danger and bodily harm, this is a dangerous duo for criminals. If a warrior witnesses a crime committed down the street, he will immediately rush to assist. If a warrior knows of crimes committed in an area, he might even situate himself in that area as a preemptive deterrent or guardian.
That means criminals no longer have to worry about just victims. Even bystanders can intervene. The police would no longer be alone in the apprehension and deterrence of criminals, because the initiative-seizing courageous warrior would be on the front-most lines of this struggle. Societal apathy is a fixture of the criminal calculus, with these bandits knowing that most will not intervene for fear of personal harm or even inconvenience. Apathy is not a part of warrior psyche, especially in the face of crime and oppressive violence. Their intense dedication to their just ideology would not only command them to intervene, it might also compel them to be present. Warriors would move to those areas most fraught with crime and criminals, walking about and even patrolling in search of wrong-doing. This would be an intense deterrence to criminals who want to minimize risk and danger, as there would be too many potential factors out of their control.
So it is that the initiative and training of warriors combine into one unbreachable bulwark against those who would commit wrongs. Courage allows the warrior to engage, and initiative ensures that they are present and ready to do so. Such a warrior society could not help but reduce its crimes and criminals.
A Possible Future
I am uncertain as to how much change is really needed to bring about such a society. Aye, more warriors are needed, but there are many prospective young women and men who could fill these roles. Perhaps the present social climate or conscious is not ready to accept this kind, but perhaps that is only because they have not yet asserted their strength and communal-utility. In all honesty, I believe it can work now. This is the time and era for the warrior society to emerge, although I must be extremely clear that the warrior society is NOT by any means exclusive to other types of societies and other classes of individuals working their own worldly ends. It is there to help and protect where other mechanisms can fail. Warriors can accomplish more, just as anyone can accomplish more than they are initially tasked to do, but that is a story for another time. We should now be content with this: upholding of the truly Right, defending of the wronged, and deterrence of the villainous.