4 ms·

man this comment feels so helpless. Oh no! what if x happens?! The answer is you deal with it. Will it be rainbows and farts? probably not, but I assume these p

man this comment feels so helpless. Oh no! what if x happens?! The answer is you deal with it. Will it be rainbows and farts? probably not, but I assume these people want to abandon their home governments because they didn't like the way they were treated. What's wrong with autonomy? What's wrong with facing hardship like our ancestors did?

50656E6973 8y ago
>What's wrong with autonomy? What's wrong with facing hardship like our ancestors did? When people rely on others to protect them their whole lives, they never learn how to protect themselves. So naturally the thought of autonomy and self defense triggers a feeling of paralyzing helplessness.
- axaxs 8y ago
  With what? A gun? A cannon? A blunderbuss! In what world can a couple on a floating plot defeat a boatload of pirates with AK47s? These are people who've successfully taken over entire cargo ships, mind you.
  - bluntfang 8y ago
    In what world can a couple on sovereign land defend themselves from an oppressive government that has a monopoly on violence?These are entities that have imprisoned and oppressed entire groups of people, mind you.
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    Crews of cargo ships generally go unarmed, for insurance reasons, and they carry cargoes worth many millions of dollars. It's not hard to understand why a group of pirates might choose to take the risk of raiding such a vessel. It's harder to see the logic in what would essentially be a glorified home invasion. Where's the money in it? Why wouldn't this hypothetical seasteading couple simply get their own AK47s and threaten to shoot back? Are pirates really going to risk death over someone's household goods?
yongjik 8y ago
Because when some freedom-loving couple takes root in some god-forsaken islet in the middle of nowhere, and when they are trapped in the middle of a hurricane, together with their newborn baby, with three hours to spare before their freedom-house goes underwater, it will be morally wrong to sentence the baby to death just because their parents are idiots, so the government will be morally compelled to send rescue squads, spending taxpayer money and possible endangering lives of rescue workers.
- bluntfang 8y ago
  Those people are all making a choice to put themselves in danger for people who explicitly don't want their support. If you're in the "babies are sacred" camp, there are far easier and more productive avenues for your government to take on. This appeal to emotion ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN") is really, really dumb.
  - yongjik 8y ago
    "Think of the children" can be used as an emotional play, but that's not a dumb cliche. There are not many things modern civilization has agreed upon, but one of them is that a child is an independent human being with their own rights and not the property of parents. In fact, it's a logical consequence of recognizing a human being as an independent individual with natural rights and not the subject of a monarch or whatever authority you have. (Which is itself a pretty modern concept, not commonly recognized in most traditional societies.)

50656E6973 8y ago

>What's wrong with autonomy? What's wrong with facing hardship like our ancestors did? When people rely on others to protect them their whole lives, they never learn how to protect themselves. So naturally the thought of autonomy and self defense triggers a feeling of paralyzing helplessness.

axaxs 8y ago
With what? A gun? A cannon? A blunderbuss! In what world can a couple on a floating plot defeat a boatload of pirates with AK47s? These are people who've successfully taken over entire cargo ships, mind you.
- bluntfang 8y ago
  In what world can a couple on sovereign land defend themselves from an oppressive government that has a monopoly on violence?These are entities that have imprisoned and oppressed entire groups of people, mind you.
- marssaxman 8y ago
  Crews of cargo ships generally go unarmed, for insurance reasons, and they carry cargoes worth many millions of dollars. It's not hard to understand why a group of pirates might choose to take the risk of raiding such a vessel. It's harder to see the logic in what would essentially be a glorified home invasion. Where's the money in it? Why wouldn't this hypothetical seasteading couple simply get their own AK47s and threaten to shoot back? Are pirates really going to risk death over someone's household goods?

yongjik 8y ago

Because when some freedom-loving couple takes root in some god-forsaken islet in the middle of nowhere, and when they are trapped in the middle of a hurricane, together with their newborn baby, with three hours to spare before their freedom-house goes underwater, it will be morally wrong to sentence the baby to death just because their parents are idiots, so the government will be morally compelled to send rescue squads, spending taxpayer money and possible endangering lives of rescue workers.

bluntfang 8y ago
Those people are all making a choice to put themselves in danger for people who explicitly don't want their support. If you're in the "babies are sacred" camp, there are far easier and more productive avenues for your government to take on. This appeal to emotion ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN") is really, really dumb.
- yongjik 8y ago
  "Think of the children" can be used as an emotional play, but that's not a dumb cliche. There are not many things modern civilization has agreed upon, but one of them is that a child is an independent human being with their own rights and not the property of parents. In fact, it's a logical consequence of recognizing a human being as an independent individual with natural rights and not the subject of a monarch or whatever authority you have. (Which is itself a pretty modern concept, not commonly recognized in most traditional societies.)