4 ms·
I think that GP's position is tenable if the tyranny comes slowly. Sure, a country-wide armed insurgency is hard to beat. That's relatively uncontroversial. If
by pietroglyph 7y ago
I think that GP's position is tenable if the tyranny comes slowly. Sure, a country-wide armed insurgency is hard to beat. That's relatively uncontroversial. If most people are comfortable as the water boils around them, however, then the armed insurgency is not going to be country-wide.
I think that argument has some basis in history (e.g. Nazi Germany), where the tyrannical government slowly got worse and worse without major internal revolts. On the other hand, there have been times where the people snapped and revolted all at once.
- ColanR 7y agoI don't think the GP's position has anything to do with slowly implemented tyranny; the GP is only referring to once the ragtag group has formed, and assessing their chances of success. I think that what you describe as the boiling frog scenario would be the best possible strategy for a government that is concerned about its policies being forcefully rejected if implemented all at once.
- slothtrop 7y agoThat came to mind as well. We're taking for granted here that much of the population was drinking the kool-aid when the Nazis took power; there wasn't, say, very popular dissent. And that's a more realistic scenario with a tyrannical power. I can't imagine one, at least a domestic one, that manages to hold on to tyranny despite the large part of the population wanting them out. With or without weapons.
- homonculus1 7y agoBanning firearms is the water boiling.