6 ms·

In the US, many libertarians are supportive of an unfettered second amendment. One reason for this support, is perhaps the explicit acknowledgment that violenc

by dfee 3y ago

In the US, many libertarians are supportive of an unfettered second amendment. One reason for this support, is perhaps the explicit acknowledgment that violence trumps rules or contracts.

Barrin92 3y ago
it's not that sort of violence that matters. A bunch of provincial homesteaders with guns don't constitute an army. Any small nation that is going to survive is going to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity. One of the funniest experiments with this kind of thing I ever read was a small town in the US being overtaken by libertarians, only to succumb to... bears. (as the citizens could neither organize waste regulations, public garbage disposal, or prevent one crazy guy from feeding the bears in the first place) https://unherd.com/2020/12/libertarianism-never-ends-well/ https://unherd.com/2020/12/libertarianism-never-ends-well/
- patrickaljord 3y ago
  > Any small nation that is going to survive is going to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity. And protected and funded by the US ;)
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    So is (almost) all of Europe. Only four countries besides the US actually meet their obligations to fund NATO, and though they've given more by GDP than the US to Ukraine, it isn't by much.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      NATO defense spending targets aren’t an obligation (well, they aren’t a spending obligation, just an obligation to make it a policy goal to move toward a spending target) and aren’t “funding NATO”. That’s a double-misrepresentation popularized by Russian propaganda proxies seeking to sow discord in the West.
      - juanani 3y ago
        Yes, any logic that explains the reality on the ground and makes US/NATO look bad must be Russian propaganda. Russkies have been making a lot of sense lately.
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        The whole point of NATO is shared defense. When one is attacked, all are attacked. If the US wasn't so heavily invested in their defense, they would certainly be spending more than they are now. The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have.
        petre 3y ago
        Keep calm. The US is now going to sell us weapons for shitloads of money in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The EU (specifically Germany who has resisted, Central and Eastern European states, some who have a corruption problem and where Russian propaganda is at home) is going to up their game now, after the fact. President Trump warned our politicians but to no avail. Only Poland has been doing it because the memory of what happened during WW2 is very much alive there.
        rewmie 3y ago
        > The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have. Nonsense. That's not how reality works. Countries like Luxembourg or Portugal aren't "subsidized" because they don't spend 2% of their GDP in dissuading Russia from invading other NATO members. Also, military spending per GDP is set as a line in the sand. Germany doesn't meet the 2% mark but still is the second biggest supporter of Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion, which is the whole reason of existence of NATO.
- ShrigmaMale 3y ago
  a lot of nations started with groups of men with guns who went from there. a solid millitarized populace is the bootloader for a potential shake-up of government or splintering off.
- xcdzvyn 3y ago
  Libertarianism does not preclude a self-defense force nor measures against bears. Get real.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    Oddly related: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      It's not odd. It was specifically brought up in the conversation. It's what the person you are responding to was responding to.

by dfee 3y ago

In the US, many libertarians are supportive of an unfettered second amendment. One reason for this support, is perhaps the explicit acknowledgment that violence trumps rules or contracts.

Barrin92 3y ago

it's not that sort of violence that matters. A bunch of provincial homesteaders with guns don't constitute an army. Any small nation that is going to survive is going to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity. One of the funniest experiments with this kind of thing I ever read was a small town in the US being overtaken by libertarians, only to succumb to... bears. (as the citizens could neither organize waste regulations, public garbage disposal, or prevent one crazy guy from feeding the bears in the first place) https://unherd.com/2020/12/libertarianism-never-ends-well/ https://unherd.com/2020/12/libertarianism-never-ends-well/

patrickaljord 3y ago
> Any small nation that is going to survive is going to look like Israel or Taiwan, militarized, armed to the teeth, with discipline, cohesion and state capacity. And protected and funded by the US ;)
- zdragnar 3y ago
  So is (almost) all of Europe. Only four countries besides the US actually meet their obligations to fund NATO, and though they've given more by GDP than the US to Ukraine, it isn't by much.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    NATO defense spending targets aren’t an obligation (well, they aren’t a spending obligation, just an obligation to make it a policy goal to move toward a spending target) and aren’t “funding NATO”. That’s a double-misrepresentation popularized by Russian propaganda proxies seeking to sow discord in the West.
    - juanani 3y ago
      Yes, any logic that explains the reality on the ground and makes US/NATO look bad must be Russian propaganda. Russkies have been making a lot of sense lately.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      The whole point of NATO is shared defense. When one is attacked, all are attacked. If the US wasn't so heavily invested in their defense, they would certainly be spending more than they are now. The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have.
      - petre 3y ago
        Keep calm. The US is now going to sell us weapons for shitloads of money in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The EU (specifically Germany who has resisted, Central and Eastern European states, some who have a corruption problem and where Russian propaganda is at home) is going to up their game now, after the fact. President Trump warned our politicians but to no avail. Only Poland has been doing it because the memory of what happened during WW2 is very much alive there.
      - rewmie 3y ago
        > The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have. Nonsense. That's not how reality works. Countries like Luxembourg or Portugal aren't "subsidized" because they don't spend 2% of their GDP in dissuading Russia from invading other NATO members. Also, military spending per GDP is set as a line in the sand. Germany doesn't meet the 2% mark but still is the second biggest supporter of Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion, which is the whole reason of existence of NATO.
ShrigmaMale 3y ago
a lot of nations started with groups of men with guns who went from there. a solid millitarized populace is the bootloader for a potential shake-up of government or splintering off.
xcdzvyn 3y ago
Libertarianism does not preclude a self-defense force nor measures against bears. Get real.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  Oddly related: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It's not odd. It was specifically brought up in the conversation. It's what the person you are responding to was responding to.