…“Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” …. “Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”
Via Claude Werner, an article by Jack Feldman examining if the sheepdog analogy is a fallacy. He examines what a sheepdog actually is – that is, the actual dogs that are owned and used by a shepherd to guard his flock. It takes the analogy to task and makes the case that the police are actually sheepdogs, and armed private citizens are… something else.
Armed citizens are a problem for the shepherds. Not being sheep, they’re not afraid of the sheepdogs and are prepared to take on the wolves, hyenas or whoever. They mean no harm to anyone, have no desire to control others, but are much harder to control and therefore to exploit. Worse, their example might spread. They’re not wolves, but not sheepdogs either. The shepherds, expecting obedience from everything but wolves, have no clue how to deal with them. Their common response is to try to get rid of armed citizens one way or another, typically by removing the arms. Acting like a sheepdog when you’re not gives the shepherds that opportunity.
It’s an interesting examination of the analogy.
Stuff From Hsoi 
You ought to read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (is on Amazon). The “sheep” analogy might make more sense then.
lwk
free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
I have read it. I understand the analogy and generally agree with it. I just thought this guy had an interesting examination of the analogy, if you really look at what a sheepdog really is. It’s food for thought.
I read the article and he has valid points. Still think the original sheepdog analogy is valid if you gloss over some of those points (which is what I think was meant). In real human society there are those who are capable of doing certain things, and others who are not. It is sometimes hard to know for sure which are the best. 🙂
regards,
lwk
Yes, I still think there’s validity in the analogy. However, if analysis of the analogy demonstrates it’s a weak analogy or that it has flaws, that’s a good thing. It allows us to improve the analogy or come up with a new one that is stronger, more effective. Improvement is good. It’s why we carry Glock’s and M&P’s instead of 1911’s… 1911’s are still valid, but we’ve found something better. 🙂
Did you read the whole article John linked?
I really like this article. I’ve never thought of myself as a “sheepdog”.
Yeah, I dig the original analogy and if I had to pick one of the 3 labels for myself it would be sheepdog. But I too am not sure I really am that. Because, am I really out to guard the flock? Is it reall my job and duty to protect anyone other than myself (and a few particular others)? It gets back to “is it worth dying for?” and “beer & TV time” maxims. I mean, I understand the intent and illustration of the analogy, and I think it’s a generally good one. But, like any attempt at simplification — it’s hard, its hard to capture the nuances and shades of gray.
And then when you look at it from the angle the guy put forth in his examination of the analogy… well… yeah, wouldn’t police actually be sheepdogs? And so then, what would we be? I’m not sure I would go with his other suggested totem animals tho… I like eating meat too much. 🙂
Well, there are any number of derogatory labels to ascribe to us. “Wannabe cop”, “gun nut”, “insecure male compensating for a small penis”, etc. The typical ad hominem response the left uses against those who espouse the “Gods of the Copybook Headings”.
You forgot the classic “dumb redneck”. 🙂
Perhaps the most ubiquitous . . .
I don’t think being a sheepdog obligates you to protect all sheep. You just protect your flock.
True, and a worthwhile line to ensure is defined.
That said, what if you have no flock? What if it’s just you? Can you not be a sheepdog then?
Or is this perhaps just getting into too many details of the analogy and taking it too literally? That is, letting an illustrative tool start to dictate how we should conduct ourselves? Instead of conducting ourselves, and letting the analogy be a reasonable mechanism for explaining ourselves.