5 ms·

> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I do think that in c

> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City. Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals. For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.

XorNot 5y ago
You keep imagining that all the population will be on your side in this exchange. It'll just be so obvious you should be fighting the government, everyone will join!
handrous 5y ago
I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. I'm extremely skeptical that they're better to have around, than not to have around, from a preserving-liberty perspective, in a developed state, especially. I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.
- zepto 5y ago
  > I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. … > I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things. I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very different… That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. > also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
      - handrous 5y ago
        > It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
- noxer 5y ago
  History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me. >I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny) They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
  - handrous 5y ago
    > They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.) The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
    - noxer 5y ago
      So the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first. Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Yes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.

XorNot 5y ago

You keep imagining that all the population will be on your side in this exchange. It'll just be so obvious you should be fighting the government, everyone will join!

handrous 5y ago

I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. I'm extremely skeptical that they're better to have around, than not to have around, from a preserving-liberty perspective, in a developed state, especially. I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.

zepto 5y ago
> I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. … > I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
- handrous 5y ago
  > You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things. I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very different… That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. > also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
    - handrous 5y ago
      > It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
noxer 5y ago
History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me. >I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny) They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
- handrous 5y ago
  > They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.) The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
  - noxer 5y ago
    So the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first. Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Yes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.