5 ms·
I’m not sure I agree with that. In the 21st century, at least in the US, most adults have access to firearms for self defense. There is no such thing as “surviv
by oceanplexian 5y ago
I’m not sure I agree with that. In the 21st century, at least in the US, most adults have access to firearms for self defense. There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves.
Personally, I view the opposite as closer to Law of the Jungle, that is our current system of policing that gives a small fraction of society access to self defense but denying it to the rest of the group.
- pedrosorio 5y agoLaw of the jungle implies lawlessness. How are you going to “self-defend” with your firearms against the random gangs or warlords in your neighborhood? You will join them or perish.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago>There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves. well originally of course it was survival of the most fit (assuming we derive our aphorisms from evolution here), that can mean smartest, fastest etc. There is no such thing as a level playing field, Harrison Bergeron has not been implemented.
- eloff 5y agoIn a world with firearms it can mean survival of the best shot, the owner of the best weapons, or more likely the wealthy with their own militia. This is all in the absence of a state providing security. This happened many times in history, particularly the feudal era where feudal lords acted like a mini state, and often pledged allegiance to a larger state with a king.