3 ms·

A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of econ

A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; but a tyrant/despot, with enough economic power (or oppression of others) can make sure a population is ideologically or otherwise fractured/disunited and cause infighting. This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood.

jaywalk 6y ago
Yeah, because history isn't littered with instances of David beating Goliath...
MangoCoffee 6y ago
well..by your logics the US founding fathers should just gave up 'cause at that time, the British Empire is stronger than whatever two-bits army that the founding fathers can scrap together.
- analog31 6y ago
  In my view, that's survivor bias. I think that an insurrection can render a country or region un-governable, even with a numerical disadvantage. But it can't necessarily establish a new government, either a good one or a bad one. The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally aligned with an already functioning colonial government. But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a successful insurrection. The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat power, and by securing control over the means of providing defense. > Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; Historical counterexamples proliferate. > This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood. Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates both those ills.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
You present a logical fallacy called a false dillema. Guns are legal in America and it's safe to walk in my neighborhood.

jaywalk 6y ago

Yeah, because history isn't littered with instances of David beating Goliath...

MangoCoffee 6y ago

well..by your logics the US founding fathers should just gave up 'cause at that time, the British Empire is stronger than whatever two-bits army that the founding fathers can scrap together.

analog31 6y ago
In my view, that's survivor bias. I think that an insurrection can render a country or region un-governable, even with a numerical disadvantage. But it can't necessarily establish a new government, either a good one or a bad one. The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally aligned with an already functioning colonial government. But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a successful insurrection. The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat power, and by securing control over the means of providing defense. > Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; Historical counterexamples proliferate. > This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood. Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates both those ills.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

You present a logical fallacy called a false dillema. Guns are legal in America and it's safe to walk in my neighborhood.