Tom Woods writes of Jeff Deist’s question, “What should a politically vanquished people [i.e., libertarians] do?”:
Now there are plenty of libertarians who say, “If the French had been armed, they could have stopped that attack sooner.”
And of course it’s hard to argue against the logic of that…
But Jeff made me think when he said: I know some French folks, and I’ll tell you something. The case for firearm ownership may be logically impeccable, but it’s not French. It just isn’t. Paris is not Texas. You are going to find it overwhelmingly difficult to persuade Parisians to carry a firearm.
Given our limited resources, is trying to turn France into Texas our best strategy?
It’s a little strange to tell people whom no one listens to, anyway, least of all the French, to stop talking.
Should we perhaps retire gracefully and, with alcoholic breath, hoe our cabbages?
It is obvious that no libertarian demands that the French carry guns. We do argue that they should have the right to carry guns; moreover, we might advise them of the potential usefulness of taking advantage of that right.
Other than that, the French of course are on their own. It’s hard to see how teaching constitutes any alleged anti-decentralist attitude on the part of libertarians.
I mean, would Deist similarly argue as follows: “I know some Soviet folks, and I’ll tell you something. The case for private ownership of the means of production may be logically impeccable, but it’s not Russian. It just isn’t,” etc.?
Of course, if there are libertarians who propose that the US government conquer France and impose Texas-style gun laws on it, I’d like to know who they are.