4 ms·

On the risk of sounding like a libertarian, there is no scenario in which it is good idea to use violence against a government. They will win, it is their own g

by yk 13y ago

On the risk of sounding like a libertarian, there is no scenario in which it is good idea to use violence against a government. They will win, it is their own game. The way to change a government is political action, not use of force.

anonymous 13y ago
I can conceive of some edge cases where shooting at a policeman or a soldier using home-printed weapons does have positive expected value. But in general I agree with you - it's like wrestling a herd of rhinos.
- klipt 13y ago
  As long as policeman and soldiers are humans, especially from the same country as you, there's the hope of appealing to their humanity to stop them from committing atrocities. Unmanned drones or robot soldiers are much scarier.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    The thing with war is that the odds can change quickly. If you don't have any weapons and the enemy soldiers have machine guns, but you can sneak up behind one of them before anyone notices, now you have a machine gun. The thing is, drones and robots work pretty much the same way. They work much more that way, actually, because if you find a vulnerability in one, it's likely present in all of them since they all came off the same assembly line. You don't have to kill all the drones, you just have to kill the ones guarding the drone control facility, or convert the drone operators to your side. The most dangerous thing about robot armies isn't that it will make governments too powerful, it's that a terrorist could take control of them. And the only way to prevent that is to not build them.
veidr 13y ago
It bears pointing out that the vast majority of changes to government have, historically, been brought about by violence. Only a vanishingly small minority of them have been effected through nonviolent political action. (Once a society has achieved democracy, the equation may be different (and closer to what you are saying). However, only a small minority of human societies have achieved democracy.) TL;DR: fuck it, print weapons

by yk 13y ago

anonymous 13y ago

I can conceive of some edge cases where shooting at a policeman or a soldier using home-printed weapons does have positive expected value. But in general I agree with you - it's like wrestling a herd of rhinos.

klipt 13y ago
As long as policeman and soldiers are humans, especially from the same country as you, there's the hope of appealing to their humanity to stop them from committing atrocities. Unmanned drones or robot soldiers are much scarier.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  The thing with war is that the odds can change quickly. If you don't have any weapons and the enemy soldiers have machine guns, but you can sneak up behind one of them before anyone notices, now you have a machine gun. The thing is, drones and robots work pretty much the same way. They work much more that way, actually, because if you find a vulnerability in one, it's likely present in all of them since they all came off the same assembly line. You don't have to kill all the drones, you just have to kill the ones guarding the drone control facility, or convert the drone operators to your side. The most dangerous thing about robot armies isn't that it will make governments too powerful, it's that a terrorist could take control of them. And the only way to prevent that is to not build them.

veidr 13y ago

It bears pointing out that the vast majority of changes to government have, historically, been brought about by violence. Only a vanishingly small minority of them have been effected through nonviolent political action. (Once a society has achieved democracy, the equation may be different (and closer to what you are saying). However, only a small minority of human societies have achieved democracy.) TL;DR: fuck it, print weapons