5 ms·

"But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too.

by st3v3r 11y ago

"But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too." Because generally, you guys insist on living in the community and getting all the benefits of doing so, without following that community's rules. Basically, you're saying that those people do not have the right to govern themselves, because when you live in that community, you have become one of those people. "So, while I want to see gay married couples defending their marijuana crops with fully auto machine guns, and saying whatever they want online, because I believe in human rights" I fail to see how fully auto machine guns involved in any way leads to human rights. Those devices only exist to deprive other humans of their right to live.

alphapapa 11y ago
Firearms actually allow humans to defend their right to life. The reason is that they are the ultimate equalizer. A gun allows the 4'11", 89-pound, 79-year-old female to protect herself when attacked by the 6'4", 240-pound, 27-year-old male (or the 5'11", 160-pound female, etc). Then, after said defense takes place, the law sorts out the consequences: right-makes-right, rather than might-makes-right. Or, in the absence of law enforcement, (e.g. the American frontier), it at least allows potential victims the potential to defend themselves, and gives potential attackers pause: even if they don't have to worry about being arrested and put on trial, they have to consider that their next victim might be armed. Conversely, in the absence of firearms, the biggest and strongest wins. And in the presence of law enforcement, by the time the police arrive, it's too late. For this reason, one of the first steps an oppressive government takes is to disarm the population. Examples of this go all the way back to even feudal Japan. It's kind of amazing that we still haven't learned our lesson. Idealism is great, but human lifetimes are relatively short, and human societies are clearly not a succession of "standing upon the shoulders of giants."

by st3v3r 11y ago

alphapapa 11y ago

Firearms actually allow humans to defend their right to life. The reason is that they are the ultimate equalizer. A gun allows the 4'11", 89-pound, 79-year-old female to protect herself when attacked by the 6'4", 240-pound, 27-year-old male (or the 5'11", 160-pound female, etc). Then, after said defense takes place, the law sorts out the consequences: right-makes-right, rather than might-makes-right. Or, in the absence of law enforcement, (e.g. the American frontier), it at least allows potential victims the potential to defend themselves, and gives potential attackers pause: even if they don't have to worry about being arrested and put on trial, they have to consider that their next victim might be armed. Conversely, in the absence of firearms, the biggest and strongest wins. And in the presence of law enforcement, by the time the police arrive, it's too late. For this reason, one of the first steps an oppressive government takes is to disarm the population. Examples of this go all the way back to even feudal Japan. It's kind of amazing that we still haven't learned our lesson. Idealism is great, but human lifetimes are relatively short, and human societies are clearly not a succession of "standing upon the shoulders of giants."