3 ms·

Maybe, but I guess that argument is what ‘gun ownership as a civil right’ people say the whole point is, right? The idea being that maybe authoritarianism “th

Maybe, but I guess that argument is what ‘gun ownership as a civil right’ people say the whole point is, right? The idea being that maybe authoritarianism “the natural order” but combined with ‘ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. I don’t know what your beliefs are on the matter, nor if you have an entirely valid point. I just wonder if anyone agrees but also feels that citizens shouldn’t have a means to protect themselves from their government that they beleive has an eventual tendeancy to turn authoritarian? Edit: very strange reaction to asking questions that don’t imply any side one way or another but no responses... if you can’t even recognize another side of an argument without an emotional response... I mean... okay, but I think it’s odd.

pjc50 8y ago
> ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. Bang, you're dead. The US romanticises revolution on the idea that every revolution will be like the US war of Independence, which is a really bad guide to how they tend to go in practice. People would do better to look at violence in South America as an example.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  You are quite right about the romanticization of the US, but there are also multiple non-state political vectors, and the state itself is far from homogenous. Any breakdown of civil society int he US is not likely to be a simple rebels vs tyrannical government scenario. Even kinetic (shooting) conflicts also involve psychological and moral warfare that has greater impact on the outcome than individual contests of violence.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Except you’re argument here is that Revolution didn’t happen because the British just shot everyone dead - right? If the government wanted to demolish everything they could glass the entire country with the push of a button.. but to what end? To rule over nothing? This argument inevitably leads to one where you say tanks and drones vs civilians, but like your ”bang you’re dead” example that isn’t a solution to policing a populace, to keep routes open, to keep production going. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners. For that you need boots on the ground, and for that, you need people willing to go through doors knowing that the first guy or two will die. The supply is those guys runs out fast. I don’t think it has anything to do with romanticism. It’s an honesty that we’ve seen in Iraq/Afghan/Syria for almost 20 years, even if you have the best miliary in the world with dozens of allies, that you can’t rule over people that don’t want to be if they can retaliate. So... do all government roads lead to authoitarianism? IDK! But it surely happens slower when the people pose an individual threat, wouldn’t you think?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    My argument is that the Revolutionary war was fought in 1776, right at the start of the Industrial revolution, and we've been through several reinventions of war in response to technological change. It's not going to go like it did back then. It would, as you say, be more like Syria. This view also presumes that there isn't a big chunk of the populace that voted for the authoritarianism and actively supports it.

pjc50 8y ago

> ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’. Bang, you're dead. The US romanticises revolution on the idea that every revolution will be like the US war of Independence, which is a really bad guide to how they tend to go in practice. People would do better to look at violence in South America as an example.

anigbrowl 8y ago
You are quite right about the romanticization of the US, but there are also multiple non-state political vectors, and the state itself is far from homogenous. Any breakdown of civil society int he US is not likely to be a simple rebels vs tyrannical government scenario. Even kinetic (shooting) conflicts also involve psychological and moral warfare that has greater impact on the outcome than individual contests of violence.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Except you’re argument here is that Revolution didn’t happen because the British just shot everyone dead - right? If the government wanted to demolish everything they could glass the entire country with the push of a button.. but to what end? To rule over nothing? This argument inevitably leads to one where you say tanks and drones vs civilians, but like your ”bang you’re dead” example that isn’t a solution to policing a populace, to keep routes open, to keep production going. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners. For that you need boots on the ground, and for that, you need people willing to go through doors knowing that the first guy or two will die. The supply is those guys runs out fast. I don’t think it has anything to do with romanticism. It’s an honesty that we’ve seen in Iraq/Afghan/Syria for almost 20 years, even if you have the best miliary in the world with dozens of allies, that you can’t rule over people that don’t want to be if they can retaliate. So... do all government roads lead to authoitarianism? IDK! But it surely happens slower when the people pose an individual threat, wouldn’t you think?
- pjc50 8y ago
  My argument is that the Revolutionary war was fought in 1776, right at the start of the Industrial revolution, and we've been through several reinventions of war in response to technological change. It's not going to go like it did back then. It would, as you say, be more like Syria. This view also presumes that there isn't a big chunk of the populace that voted for the authoritarianism and actively supports it.