How should a commonwealth arm its citizens?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington proposed that the rest of the people under the commonwealth be disarmed and governed by lieutenants of provinces. He believed that a commonwealth should maintain a standing army of strangers or others in discipline and pay, rather than arming its citizens. "That the rest of the people under the empire of this commonwealth, be disarm'd, and govern'd by lieutenants of provinces. That the commonwealth have a standing army of strangers or others, in disciplin and pay." [1]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens because they would be united and motivated to defend liberty, making them a disciplined and courageous militia. This belief is grounded in his argument that an equal commonwealth, where citizens are trained to arms, is hardest to conquer. "the invader of such a society must not only trust to his own strength, inasmuch as the commonwealth being equal, he must needs find them united, but in regard that such citizens, being all soldiers or train'd up to their arms, which they use not for the defence of slavery, but of liberty" [2]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens by arming the rich and excusing the poor, in contrast to modern practices, because this method made citizens capable of being the best in both field and city, unlike monarchical armies. "wheras we, excusing the rich, and arming the poor, becom the vassals of our servants, they, by excusing the poor, and arming such as were rich enough to be freemen, became lords of the earth." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that in a democracy, a people should take their turns upon the guard or in arms for the common defense of their liberty and livelihood. This is grounded in his view that such a system constitutes the sword of democracy. "If a people, where there neither is lord nor lords of the whole, nor of two parts in three of the whole territory, for the common defence of their liberty and of their livelihood, take their turns upon the guard or in arms, it is the sword of democracy." [4]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens, as he argued that such a government is the hardest to be conquered and that men accustomed to their arms and liberties will never endure the yoke. [5]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that citizens should be armed according to their estates, as was done in Rome under Servius Tullus, with some enrolled in the horse centurys and others in the foot, with arms assigned accordingly. He argued that this was necessary for defense and that the poorer sort could not be trusted with arms due to their poverty. "Citizens are not only to defend the commonwealth, but according to their abilitys, as the Romans under Servius Tullus (regard had to their estates) were som inrol'd in the horse centurys, and others of the foot, with arms injoin'd accordingly." [6]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington proposed that no citizen should exercise any trade but that of arms only, indicating that he believed a commonwealth should arm its citizens by making military service the sole profession of its citizens. (key quote above) [7]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens, as he argued that the glorious commonwealth of Rome was born from the sword in the hands of her citizens, and he praised the idea of a freeborn nation distributing its magistracies and honors rather than relying on the dole of one man. "What was it that begot the glorious commonwealth of Rome, but the sword in the hands of her citizens?" [8]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth whose militia consists of mercenaries cannot be great and is potentially fatal to liberty, arguing that such a system is only viable for states like Venice, but not for a popular government. "A commonwealth whose militia consists of mercenarys, to be safe, must be situated as Venice, but can in no wise be great... To a popular government that could not do the like, mercenary arms have never fail'd to be fatal" [9]
• BELIEF (undated): James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens, as this would prevent the representative or the senate from having the power to perpetuate themselves. He argues that armed citizens serve as a check against tyranny. "the arms of the commonwealth are both numerous, and in a posture or readiness; but they consist of its citizens" [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. James Harrington believed that a commonwealth should arm its citizens because they are motivated to defend liberty, making them a disciplined and courageous militia. [2]

2. He argued that an equal commonwealth, where citizens are trained to arms, is hardest to conquer. [2]

3. Harrington proposed that citizens should be armed according to their estates, as was done in Rome under Servius Tullus, with some enrolled in the horse centurys and others in the foot, with arms assigned accordingly. [6]

4. He believed that no citizen should exercise any trade but that of arms only, indicating that he believed a commonwealth should arm its citizens by making military service the sole profession of its citizens. [7]

5. Harrington believed that in a democracy, a people should take their turns upon the guard or in arms for the common defense of their liberty and livelihood. [4]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific modern implications of arming citizens, such as the role of the state in regulating firearms or the balance between individual and collective security.

Extrapolation: James Harrington would likely argue that a commonwealth should arm its citizens in a structured and disciplined manner, ensuring that they are trained and motivated to defend their liberty. He would oppose the use of mercenaries and advocate for a citizen militia as a check against tyranny.

Competing readings: The record shows a tension between arming citizens for defense and the idea of maintaining a standing army of strangers. The latter is presented as a potential alternative but is generally viewed as less desirable.

Confidence: Moderate, based on the partial coverage and the presence of competing readings in the record.