When we look at society from the English Republicanism standpoint, that is the traditions set down by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, James Harrington, Algernon Sydney and Thomas Jefferson, we see a whole different world than the one espoused by Kirk and William Lind.

From the Lockean/English Republican perspective. Society will not break down because the state loses its “monopoly on the use of force.” This is because the state never had a monopoly on the use of force. The people always maintained the ultimo ratio, the ultimate authority on force.

James Harrington, an English Republican, authored the Commenwealth of Oceana in 1656. Here Robert Shalope summarizes Harrington’s main argument in “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment”

“Like Machiavelli, Harrington considered the bearing of arms to be the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation as responsible moral agents. But now landownership became the essential basis for the bearing of arms. Civic virtue came to be defined as the freeholder bearing arms in defense of his property and of his state.”

http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html

The yeoman farmer, armed with a rifle, on his own plot of land was the paragon of early American Republicanism. Because this man was independent of government and when the state or society broke down, he would be independent, capable of feeding himself and defending himself. Many yeoman farmers, because of mutual self-preservation, would then bind together to form a new government to protect their natural rights.

From this perspective, society would be much more resilient than 4GW would give it credit for. Rather than going into sudden shock because the state loses its monopoly on the use of force, society would immediately combine and strike back (because the citizens are armed and independent).

Locke never sees a society where the people become reliant on the “government’s monopoly on the use of force.” Rather the people are self-reliant and weary of government power. When the government cannot protect them or the government becomes to tyrannical, they go back to the state of nature and form a new government.

In summary:

Given the English Republican model set down by Locke, Harrington etc... we have some interesting differences with the Kirk/4GW camp:

1. The state is a powerful entity capable of great tyranny. It is better to face hundreds of independent enemies in the “state of nature” who cannot concentrate their power rather than an all powerful state that can concentrate its power vs. The state is very weak and the most dangerous place to be is in a “state of nature” where there are hundreds of independent enemies who are undermining society

2. The state does not have the monopoly on the use of force. The people always maintained the ultimate use on force, which is why they bear arms. When society breaks down they are ready and do not go into shock vs. The people do not have a monopoly on the use of force and when the state fails to protect people, they will go into shock and society will crumble

For more reading on “Republicanism” and the armed citizenry

See J.G.A. Pocock

The Machiavellian Moment
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/1729.html

and

The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic
http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalciti.html