3 ms·

It's really clear. If your home is invaded and there is no rule of law, you ambush and kill the thugs. If that's not feasible, or if the retaliation can't be ha

It's really clear. If your home is invaded and there is no rule of law, you ambush and kill the thugs. If that's not feasible, or if the retaliation can't be handled, then you leave for a place where you aren't chattel for a gang of thugs. Because it's no longer your home. If your country won't or can't protect you and your neighbors, it's not your country, so yes, fleeing is the only rational move. They can't extort you if you're not there anymore, and you run the chance of grouping up with enough like minded others that you might be able to return and take back your land with force. I'm not criticizing the people who find themselves in shitty situations. I'm criticizing your statement that the civilization I am fortunate enough to live in is "privilege." It is a carefully guarded and deliberately constructed civilization designed precisely to defend individuals from mobs and strongmen. That is a right, not a privilege, secured by violence and death and sacrifice. When there is no rule of law, might makes right. Securing civilization from lawlessness universally starts with blood and death and is a horror show. It's that, or leave for a better place. By staying, you're giving power to the exploiters. Worse, you're giving them the means to abuse and exploit more people, and more generations of people. There are no good or easy choices in such situations. You kill, you leave, or you perpetuate the hellscape, inflicting it on your local society. The idea of the state having a monopoly on violence is the foundation of all successful civilizations. The idea being that if there is no monopoly, the right and responsibility to use violence falls to individuals, and when individuals are wielding violence without consequences, rule of law is meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

helloworld11 5y ago
I mostly agree with the ideas you're expressing, and that they're a vital part of any decent, functional society. My strong disagreement is with criticism of vigilante reactions under dysfunctional circumstances, and with the perhaps unintentionally flippant insistence that people should just leave their home if they live in partly lawless places, or that they can at all easily do this, with families and precious possessions included. Staying isn't just a casual preference for most people, it's a basic economic necessity and an emotional attachment to the idea of not giving up and ceding one's home to abusive people because things got tough. People aren't normally thinking in some abstract sense that "I should leave this country and stop giving abusive social elements the means with which to perpetuate themselves". They're more often thinking. "This is my home and where my family is from, why should I flee everything I know instead of fighting back however I need to?".

helloworld11 5y ago

I mostly agree with the ideas you're expressing, and that they're a vital part of any decent, functional society. My strong disagreement is with criticism of vigilante reactions under dysfunctional circumstances, and with the perhaps unintentionally flippant insistence that people should just leave their home if they live in partly lawless places, or that they can at all easily do this, with families and precious possessions included. Staying isn't just a casual preference for most people, it's a basic economic necessity and an emotional attachment to the idea of not giving up and ceding one's home to abusive people because things got tough. People aren't normally thinking in some abstract sense that "I should leave this country and stop giving abusive social elements the means with which to perpetuate themselves". They're more often thinking. "This is my home and where my family is from, why should I flee everything I know instead of fighting back however I need to?".