A part of this problem lies in an over-enamorment with physical vigor.

Will Tanner’s article in Islander 5 (The Mercenaries) is a set of three historical vignettes between two framing statements regarding the locus of power in society, relative to the state. The three stories are of the exploits of three mercenary groups in the modern day, post WWII. The framing is at the first the integration of the Percy’s pseudo-kingdom into the rule of the British King and last the current status quo of force-domination by nation-states. The thesis of the article, in effect, is to point out this centralization of power into the states, how they do not abide rivals, and, in some sense, to lionize and admire the alternate loci it proffers, the mercenaries and their purported predecessor, the Percies of northern England. The article has some merit, but it stops short of the complexity necessary to its assertion.

The problems I would address are two: the moral difficulty on one hand and the category error on the other.

First, the article fails to make clear (and seems rather to forget) that power without virtue does not become good merely because its foes are wicked. We may not condone wickedness simply because a more outrageous or mature wickedness is its foe. In other words, the mercenaries cannot be absolved of their wrongdoing, such as it is, by the outrages of their military foes or the grime and perfidy of their bureaucratic foes.

A part of this problem, to my eye, lies in an over-enamorment with physical vigor, the trappings of true strength. Guns and competence and military might are exciting things; I’ve an affection for them all myself. There’s a reason weapons have appeared,to my memory, in every significant story I’ve written, why most by far have bloodshed. These are the tools of a crucial part of masculinity now derided by much of the culture, and they have value. But their value lies in their telos, not in themselves. In the words of a master, we may not love the sword merely for its sharpness or the warrior solely for his glory; we must first and foremost, as the substance of our admiration, love that which they defend (See: The Lord of the Rings, book 4, chapter 4).

The second issue is the mix-up between ‘distributed sovereignty’ (distributed power) and localism. The article fails to remark upon this difference, and yet this difference is crucial to its whole thesis. ‘Distributed power’ merely means that the force of the sword, to a military extent, is held by hands other than the central state. The cartels in Mexico are ‘distributed power.’ If any man calls them a hero, he is a fool, an ignoramus, or clearly wicked.

(I use the term ‘distributed power’ rather than the article’s ‘distributed sovereignty’ and as a synonym to it because ‘sovereignty’ is a word of peculiar significance in my thought.)

Localism, meanwhile, is not merely a dispersion of power. No, it is the capacity of the people native to an area to determine their own course. Crucial here is that localism requires the native population to hold power, while distributed power merely requires the power-holder to be other than that of the centralized state. It is this quality which the three mercenary bands Tanner speaks of lack- and which the Percys, in all likelihood, if only over time, possessed in a way (not as representative government but by relationship of responsibility with the people they ruled).

This difference, at least, shows why we can with some justice regard the fall of the Percys as a tragedy, the integration of a locale into a distant centrality, whereas the fall of the in-potential mercenary power-structures is much less affective. The fall of a people’s rulers is more tragic than the fall of those who are merely rulers, never mind the people.

All this, however, and we should not suppose distributed power an evil or unimportance. Localism’s acme requires distributed power, and localism generally thrives with some measure thereof. A transfer of military force from the standing army to local militias is an example of healthy, localism-producing distribution of sovereignty (power). Such America’s Founders desired and sought to achieve; such we have effectively forgotten, so that ‘militia’ has become a term of derision.

Tanner’s article is an intriguing recounting of history and prompts worthwhile thought. Its ideas, however, are half-completed and dangerously so. Distribution of power is not enough unless that power is linked to righteousness and bound to the people. Tanner does not explicitly state that it is enough, admittedly, but the lack of acknowledgement of the deficiency is a marked detriment to his work.

God bless.