2 ms·

Freedom simply is used as a synonym for "strength". It is weak to bow to others' wishes. Are you weak, or are you free? It is weak to accept constraints on your

by MrMan 4y ago

Freedom simply is used as a synonym for "strength". It is weak to bow to others' wishes. Are you weak, or are you free? It is weak to accept constraints on your will. Will you accept regulations, which attempt to constrain you from exercising your will? Or are you strong? Firearms are wielded by the strong against the weak. Sometimes for no reason! Weak people explain why they murdered someone. The strong "stand their ground."

cowtools 4y ago
I disagree. Freedom is a word with many meanings. One of them is not exactly "strength" but "opportunity", which could be established through higher levels of individual "strength" and ability to shape one's environment. Generally, firearms are a freedom-enhancing technology because they enable people to somewhat self-govern and give citizens leverage against their own government with respect to the social contract. But even if we accept the idea that individual "freedom" is somewhat used synonymously with individual "strength", then why would this be considered a bad thing? >It is weak to bow to others' wishes Bowing to someone else's wishes is not authoritarianism or weakness. Being forced to do so with no recourse or representation is authoritarianism and weakness. >Firearms are wielded by the strong against the weak. I completely agree. The disparity between the armed and non-armed population is what gives fascist and communist dictatorships to operate in the first place. >Sometimes for no reason! Weak people explain why they murdered someone. The strong "stand their ground." It might distress you that the strong have power over the weak. But this is merely the natural order of things. The world is only just and moral insofar as the strong choose make it so. If you want to render yourself and your peers weaker then you can do so, but you will only be forfeiting your power to others less benevolent than you. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

by MrMan 4y ago

cowtools 4y ago

I disagree. Freedom is a word with many meanings. One of them is not exactly "strength" but "opportunity", which could be established through higher levels of individual "strength" and ability to shape one's environment. Generally, firearms are a freedom-enhancing technology because they enable people to somewhat self-govern and give citizens leverage against their own government with respect to the social contract. But even if we accept the idea that individual "freedom" is somewhat used synonymously with individual "strength", then why would this be considered a bad thing? >It is weak to bow to others' wishes Bowing to someone else's wishes is not authoritarianism or weakness. Being forced to do so with no recourse or representation is authoritarianism and weakness. >Firearms are wielded by the strong against the weak. I completely agree. The disparity between the armed and non-armed population is what gives fascist and communist dictatorships to operate in the first place. >Sometimes for no reason! Weak people explain why they murdered someone. The strong "stand their ground." It might distress you that the strong have power over the weak. But this is merely the natural order of things. The world is only just and moral insofar as the strong choose make it so. If you want to render yourself and your peers weaker then you can do so, but you will only be forfeiting your power to others less benevolent than you. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.