6 ms·
OK so not actually guns but "government" then. Not as dramatic though. OP is likely the same kind of person who calls taxes "theft" for rhetorical purposes.
by dendriti 4y ago
OK so not actually guns but "government" then. Not as dramatic though.
OP is likely the same kind of person who calls taxes "theft" for rhetorical purposes.
- nostromo 4y agoHow do you think governments force people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do?
- theossuary 4y agoUsing people. Governments have been powerful far longer than guns have existed.
- bigyikes 4y agoWhat are the people holding if you resist with enough strength?
- devmunchies 4y ago> using people You mean violence. Physical force. In that context, the means is irrelevant and pedantic.
- Dylan16807 4y agoSo why specify guns? Especially when they're so rarely used in situations like this.
- smegger001 4y agobecause most governments quit using swords long enough ago that guns are now the symbol representing violent force.
- lazide 4y agoUsed? Sure. You don’t need to use it when everyone knows what will happen. The presence is enough 99% of the time. Or are you saying cops don’t have real pistols in their holsters, and agents just pretend to be armed on those raids?
- Dylan16807 4y agoA white collar raid doesn't need to bring guns.
- lazide 4y agoAnd yet they usually do.
- alvah 4y agoIt’s a widely-used aphorism for governments’ monopoly on violence, which, as others have pointed out, is ultimately how governments get people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do.
- CydeWeys 4y agoWhat do you think they were using before guns? Hint: it's whatever weapons were commonplace at the time.
- headsoup 4y agoAnd what do said people threaten to use to maintain that control?
- ffhhj 4y agoAnts. Ants that bite people buried in sand up to the neck. These Bahamian islanders aren't playing games.
- perfecthjrjth 4y agono "government" is possible without mononpoly on violence.