5 ms·

If you want to rebel against the state, whether or not they have a "monopoly on the use of force" is irrelevant: civilians aren't going to be able to fight agai

by vore 8y ago

If you want to rebel against the state, whether or not they have a "monopoly on the use of force" is irrelevant: civilians aren't going to be able to fight against effectively against a trained military or state paramilitary, especially more so in the US.

CamperBob2 8y ago
Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well in Viet Nam and any number of other places.
Reelin 8y ago
This could not be more false. A prime example is the history of the (still ongoing) Iraq conflict - it's nearing 16 years now. Or there's Viet Nam, Northern Ireland (aka the troubles), and you might recall the Communist Party of China? See this Wikipedia page for many more (both successful and not so successful). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements The people making up that "trained military" are themselves civilians at the end of the day. It all comes down to how widely supported the revolutionaries are. In most cases they don't fare well because they aren't actually that widely supported, just vocal and violent. This all changes in the fairly predictable near future where scifi-esque armed machines are a reality.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  The armed-machines idea is dependent on humans being able to author stable and predictable software. As time goes by I’m progressively more convinced we’re not capable of that. It’s quite possible I only believe that in an effort to comfort myself.
  - krageon 8y ago
    If you err on the side of extreme violence, I think it is perfectly possible to arm machines with "good" results. If making "mistakes" when targeting things or people horrifies you, then maybe you are correct. I posit that the state does occasionally care more about results than about whether or not they are horrified (obviously not every state is the same, but certainly the superpowers are like this).
- cageface 8y ago
  Vietnam at least is not a good example. Their efforts to kick out colonial powers would not have succeeded without a huge amount of help from Russia and China.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Do you think they'd remain neutral in the event of a hypothetical civil war here?
- freeflight 8y ago
  Iraq and Vietnam are both examples of populations resisting against a foreign military invading their country, thus having to deal with a population, and culture, they have no clue about. That's quite a different scenario than your own domestic government turning on you, with its way better understanding, and DATA, about the people of the country. In a situation like that, the state institutions will be taken over fully functional and turned against you, while in Iraq and Vietnam these state institutions were among the first to be dismantled by the invaders.

by vore 8y ago

CamperBob2 8y ago

Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well in Viet Nam and any number of other places.

Reelin 8y ago

This could not be more false. A prime example is the history of the (still ongoing) Iraq conflict - it's nearing 16 years now. Or there's Viet Nam, Northern Ireland (aka the troubles), and you might recall the Communist Party of China? See this Wikipedia page for many more (both successful and not so successful). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements The people making up that "trained military" are themselves civilians at the end of the day. It all comes down to how widely supported the revolutionaries are. In most cases they don't fare well because they aren't actually that widely supported, just vocal and violent. This all changes in the fairly predictable near future where scifi-esque armed machines are a reality.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
The armed-machines idea is dependent on humans being able to author stable and predictable software. As time goes by I’m progressively more convinced we’re not capable of that. It’s quite possible I only believe that in an effort to comfort myself.
- krageon 8y ago
  If you err on the side of extreme violence, I think it is perfectly possible to arm machines with "good" results. If making "mistakes" when targeting things or people horrifies you, then maybe you are correct. I posit that the state does occasionally care more about results than about whether or not they are horrified (obviously not every state is the same, but certainly the superpowers are like this).
cageface 8y ago
Vietnam at least is not a good example. Their efforts to kick out colonial powers would not have succeeded without a huge amount of help from Russia and China.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Do you think they'd remain neutral in the event of a hypothetical civil war here?
freeflight 8y ago
Iraq and Vietnam are both examples of populations resisting against a foreign military invading their country, thus having to deal with a population, and culture, they have no clue about. That's quite a different scenario than your own domestic government turning on you, with its way better understanding, and DATA, about the people of the country. In a situation like that, the state institutions will be taken over fully functional and turned against you, while in Iraq and Vietnam these state institutions were among the first to be dismantled by the invaders.