3 ms·

yeah it really helped when a private company leaked the personal data of _literally everybody_ and suffered _exactly no consequences_

outbackcoder 8y ago
But that private company cannot force you at gunpoint to comply or take away your right to medical care should you not use their services. Everyone should have a contingency handgun or two if/when things go to hell in a handcart. After Katrina, government swooped in and confiscated legally-owned guns from everyone they could. None of these were ever returned. A handgun could easily prevent your family from being looted, raped, overtaken by bad people at your house. The use of guns for this reason happens a couple of million times a year in America, but it never makes the news because righteous use of firearms does not fit the liberal, progressive narrative. I know two people who saved their own families from harm by having a gun at home.
- gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
  It's pointless, we're going to get downvoted to hell by the fools who think they've got it all figured out.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Yeah belaboring people as fools straight out the gate isn't a good way to make your argument. I had actually upvoted your other comment before seeing this one. Ever consider that you might be partly right but also partly wrong, and that maybe people are reacting to your extreme arrogance and unwillingness to entertain other points of view?
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    More probably, you're getting downvoted for bringing politics to the discussion. And insulting everyone who does not agree with you.
    - shadowxs76 8y ago
      Bringing politics to a discussion thread that's very definitely and correctly about politics? Wow, what a problem. Or is it just that they give a point of view that you don't like.
- TremendousJudge 8y ago
  Violence is truly the solution to all of our problems
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Violence is the force behind all government regulation. If you do not choose to comply, law enforcement will make you do so at gunpoint. In every society, no matter how progressive, the specter of violence is inescapable since there is no other real way to coerce human behavior. You can debate the pros and cons of centralization vs decentralization of violent power, but it's misleading to claim that one argument is inherently violent and the other somehow is not. For example, you could argue that the deterrent effect of a strong police force enforcing strict laws leads to less actual physical violence and crime than the deterrent effect of every home being vigilant and armed. But regardless of what side you take, both approaches are backed by the prospect of violence.
    - mythrwy 8y ago
      There are lots of other ways to coerce human behavior besides violence. Violence only usually works for a short time, in limited situations, with limited groups of people. Other than that it's largely counterproductive because dead babies photos get folks agitated. What works really well is economic coercion. Sure, you don't have to do such and such, but then your kids won't go to college, you won't get a good job, you won't be able to buy anything, and in extreme cases, you won't be able to eat. That is effective coercion, the kind all of us are subject to right now and generally responsive to as well. The issue with breaking the law isn't that you might get shot by the cops, it's that you won't be able to get a good (or any?) job ever ever again after you get out of 10 year confinement. So no women, no wine, no everyone thinking you are really something in your new car. No power. Will get bossed around in some low level degrading position for table scraps, if you are lucky. It's really the same kind of thing as social credit score in China, just not as formal. And that kind of coercion is how smart people do it, not with guns.

outbackcoder 8y ago

But that private company cannot force you at gunpoint to comply or take away your right to medical care should you not use their services. Everyone should have a contingency handgun or two if/when things go to hell in a handcart. After Katrina, government swooped in and confiscated legally-owned guns from everyone they could. None of these were ever returned. A handgun could easily prevent your family from being looted, raped, overtaken by bad people at your house. The use of guns for this reason happens a couple of million times a year in America, but it never makes the news because righteous use of firearms does not fit the liberal, progressive narrative. I know two people who saved their own families from harm by having a gun at home.

gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
It's pointless, we're going to get downvoted to hell by the fools who think they've got it all figured out.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Yeah belaboring people as fools straight out the gate isn't a good way to make your argument. I had actually upvoted your other comment before seeing this one. Ever consider that you might be partly right but also partly wrong, and that maybe people are reacting to your extreme arrogance and unwillingness to entertain other points of view?
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  More probably, you're getting downvoted for bringing politics to the discussion. And insulting everyone who does not agree with you.
  - shadowxs76 8y ago
    Bringing politics to a discussion thread that's very definitely and correctly about politics? Wow, what a problem. Or is it just that they give a point of view that you don't like.
TremendousJudge 8y ago
Violence is truly the solution to all of our problems
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Violence is the force behind all government regulation. If you do not choose to comply, law enforcement will make you do so at gunpoint. In every society, no matter how progressive, the specter of violence is inescapable since there is no other real way to coerce human behavior. You can debate the pros and cons of centralization vs decentralization of violent power, but it's misleading to claim that one argument is inherently violent and the other somehow is not. For example, you could argue that the deterrent effect of a strong police force enforcing strict laws leads to less actual physical violence and crime than the deterrent effect of every home being vigilant and armed. But regardless of what side you take, both approaches are backed by the prospect of violence.
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    There are lots of other ways to coerce human behavior besides violence. Violence only usually works for a short time, in limited situations, with limited groups of people. Other than that it's largely counterproductive because dead babies photos get folks agitated. What works really well is economic coercion. Sure, you don't have to do such and such, but then your kids won't go to college, you won't get a good job, you won't be able to buy anything, and in extreme cases, you won't be able to eat. That is effective coercion, the kind all of us are subject to right now and generally responsive to as well. The issue with breaking the law isn't that you might get shot by the cops, it's that you won't be able to get a good (or any?) job ever ever again after you get out of 10 year confinement. So no women, no wine, no everyone thinking you are really something in your new car. No power. Will get bossed around in some low level degrading position for table scraps, if you are lucky. It's really the same kind of thing as social credit score in China, just not as formal. And that kind of coercion is how smart people do it, not with guns.