13 ms·

This isn't a politics discussion site and to top this off this is an extremist view which doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's not even remotely relate

This isn't a politics discussion site and to top this off this is an extremist view which doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's not even remotely related to the article. Why is this not d/ved to oblivion? Are you even from France?

oleganza 13y ago
I live in Paris. My comment is extra-relevant because in every discussion of something that government does "wrong" people miss the big picture. The problem is not in some particular "bad action", but in concentration of violence. Now, it's offensive that you call my view "extremist". It's not me who teaches you how to leave, makes apologies for taxation, inflation, controls, restrictions, violent intervention and threats. It is people with guns who are "extremists" because instead of seeking peaceful solutions, they "solve" everything by decree and a gun. I will never ever pose a threat to you or your lifestyle. If you like your government, party or president - that's fine. I will never threaten you based on your beliefs. Now will you threaten me based on my beliefs? I don't want to participate in your club, receive "services" from it or support your laws or president. Will you respect me like I respect you?
- rtpg 13y ago
  >It is people with guns who are "extremists" because instead of seeking peaceful solutions, they "solve" everything by decree and a gun. Democracy is a pretty fucking peaceful solution in most developped nations to solve things. The guns are there to protect the democratic system, because if there's nothing like that, people have been shown to not follow the rules decided by the democratic system. Empirical evidence is a lot more convincing than your personal theory on how things "should" work.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    "The guns are there to protect the democratic system" You have just presented a justification for guy A killing guy B for now forking over his part of income to guy C. Now you need to decipher "democratic system" and what does it mean in reality. I my view, it's a label for a system where opinions of some people must be forced onto others using force based on some sophisticated paperwork called "voting".
    - embolism 13y ago
      You have just presented a justification for guy A killing guy B for now forking over his part of income to guy C. Without the government, activities like that will take place without any justification.
      - oleganza 13y ago
        First, it's an assertion without a proof. Second, in other words you say "I don't know how to protect myself against random violence without centralized violence, I will advocate imposing that violence on everyone around." Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate "guns are bad" or "guns are good" here. If you want to set up your protection club with helicopters and ninjas, I have nothing against. But do you say it must be imposed on me? Only because I somehow benefit under umbrella of your enterprise? In other words, you want to force me to pay for your business model when it's you who bothers about security and cannot figure out how to pay for it voluntarily.
        embolism 13y ago
        Taking your two answers together, it seems that hiring a security company to provide armed guards to protect me would be perfectly acceptable to you. What's to stop consolidation amongst the security companies? What would prevent them from using their monopoly of force to set up whatever government they liked? That's essentially how central government formed in the first place. Why wouldn't it just happen again?
        oleganza 13y ago
        Even if it could, is it a justification for it? I think government is only possible when many believe it's good. It's not only raw violence. If people see violence they don't like it. That's why government tries hard hiding it under abstract concepts.
        embolism 13y ago
        What has justification got to do with anything? People aren't arguing with you because they like the fact that the government uses force. The argument is that if you eliminated the government, the alternative (private dictatorships) would be even less accountable. Certainly people are susceptible to a kind of strange loyalty to governments, but if you remove the government that won't just disappear. People will just become loyal to the most powerful mob for protection. That's what happened before. It's up to you to explain why it would be any different now.
- skue 13y ago
  Please stop calling it "offensive" when people have a strong reaction your views.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Fair enough.
- goldfeld 13y ago
  Would you prefer distribution of violence?
GuiA 13y ago
I'm sorry, how is that an extremist view? Nowhere is he saying that we should all assassinate the president, or kill all the arabs, or anything resembling extremist views. What he's stating are facts. Re-read the sentences one by one. They're the underpinnings of our society and they're no fun to hear, and most people don't even realize that they're there, but it's the reality of things.
- mattmanser 13y ago
  I'm not even vaguely interested in this discussion precisely because there are no facts in there, each point is an extreme interpretation of the world by someone who is clearly an anarchist. Pick any one paragraph and approach it from a devil's advocate, try and argue against it yourself. For every one a clear counter point should immediately jump to you mind or you need to do some serious and unbiased research into history, politics and sociology. That democratic governments are sued, that they do censure themselves, that politicians do resign in disgrace, that they are thrown out of power peacefully, that police officers are prosecuted for excessive force, that enquiries are done into police shootings, that many police forces fire less bullets in a year than a single gun enthusiast might in a week at the shooting range. You'll rapidly see how preposterous the whole rant is. He claims that he cannot renegotiate the power they grant to their government. But anyone in a democracy can become a politician and gain that power or a political activist and energise a base until the government starts negotiating. But it cannot be a person on their own. They must be able to convince many others. He just can't be bothered. So no facts or reality, just an extreme political opinion not discussing the article at all, which is precisely why these discussions aren't a good fit for a programming, tech and startup board. The post is very relevant, this thread, not.
  - GuiA 13y ago
    You're not even trying. Maybe if you're "not even vaguely interested in [the] discussion", you shouldn't take part in it. Sure you can argue for or against the double edged sword that is government– and I'm sure most "reasonable people" would argue for it. But saying that the basic tenets that oleganza wrote about are wrong is patently lying to yourself. If you don't pay your taxes, don't agree with a court's verdict, don't pay a fine that you got– guess what, ultimately things will be resolved by holding you against your will in a little concrete cell, and if you try to get out of it, violence will be used against you. > But anyone in a democracy can become a politician and gain that power or a political activist Have you been following the news recently? Do you see what happens to activists? As for the argument "anyone can become politician and have power", I find staring at the pictures on this page to be pretty self-explanatory wrt that argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_... You can dismiss it all if you want, but you're only fooling yourself.

oleganza 13y ago

I live in Paris. My comment is extra-relevant because in every discussion of something that government does "wrong" people miss the big picture. The problem is not in some particular "bad action", but in concentration of violence. Now, it's offensive that you call my view "extremist". It's not me who teaches you how to leave, makes apologies for taxation, inflation, controls, restrictions, violent intervention and threats. It is people with guns who are "extremists" because instead of seeking peaceful solutions, they "solve" everything by decree and a gun. I will never ever pose a threat to you or your lifestyle. If you like your government, party or president - that's fine. I will never threaten you based on your beliefs. Now will you threaten me based on my beliefs? I don't want to participate in your club, receive "services" from it or support your laws or president. Will you respect me like I respect you?

rtpg 13y ago
>It is people with guns who are "extremists" because instead of seeking peaceful solutions, they "solve" everything by decree and a gun. Democracy is a pretty fucking peaceful solution in most developped nations to solve things. The guns are there to protect the democratic system, because if there's nothing like that, people have been shown to not follow the rules decided by the democratic system. Empirical evidence is a lot more convincing than your personal theory on how things "should" work.
- oleganza 13y ago
  "The guns are there to protect the democratic system" You have just presented a justification for guy A killing guy B for now forking over his part of income to guy C. Now you need to decipher "democratic system" and what does it mean in reality. I my view, it's a label for a system where opinions of some people must be forced onto others using force based on some sophisticated paperwork called "voting".
  - embolism 13y ago
    You have just presented a justification for guy A killing guy B for now forking over his part of income to guy C. Without the government, activities like that will take place without any justification.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      First, it's an assertion without a proof. Second, in other words you say "I don't know how to protect myself against random violence without centralized violence, I will advocate imposing that violence on everyone around." Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate "guns are bad" or "guns are good" here. If you want to set up your protection club with helicopters and ninjas, I have nothing against. But do you say it must be imposed on me? Only because I somehow benefit under umbrella of your enterprise? In other words, you want to force me to pay for your business model when it's you who bothers about security and cannot figure out how to pay for it voluntarily.
      - embolism 13y ago
        Taking your two answers together, it seems that hiring a security company to provide armed guards to protect me would be perfectly acceptable to you. What's to stop consolidation amongst the security companies? What would prevent them from using their monopoly of force to set up whatever government they liked? That's essentially how central government formed in the first place. Why wouldn't it just happen again?
        oleganza 13y ago
        Even if it could, is it a justification for it? I think government is only possible when many believe it's good. It's not only raw violence. If people see violence they don't like it. That's why government tries hard hiding it under abstract concepts.
        embolism 13y ago
        What has justification got to do with anything? People aren't arguing with you because they like the fact that the government uses force. The argument is that if you eliminated the government, the alternative (private dictatorships) would be even less accountable. Certainly people are susceptible to a kind of strange loyalty to governments, but if you remove the government that won't just disappear. People will just become loyal to the most powerful mob for protection. That's what happened before. It's up to you to explain why it would be any different now.
skue 13y ago
Please stop calling it "offensive" when people have a strong reaction your views.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Fair enough.
goldfeld 13y ago
Would you prefer distribution of violence?

GuiA 13y ago

I'm sorry, how is that an extremist view? Nowhere is he saying that we should all assassinate the president, or kill all the arabs, or anything resembling extremist views. What he's stating are facts. Re-read the sentences one by one. They're the underpinnings of our society and they're no fun to hear, and most people don't even realize that they're there, but it's the reality of things.

mattmanser 13y ago
I'm not even vaguely interested in this discussion precisely because there are no facts in there, each point is an extreme interpretation of the world by someone who is clearly an anarchist. Pick any one paragraph and approach it from a devil's advocate, try and argue against it yourself. For every one a clear counter point should immediately jump to you mind or you need to do some serious and unbiased research into history, politics and sociology. That democratic governments are sued, that they do censure themselves, that politicians do resign in disgrace, that they are thrown out of power peacefully, that police officers are prosecuted for excessive force, that enquiries are done into police shootings, that many police forces fire less bullets in a year than a single gun enthusiast might in a week at the shooting range. You'll rapidly see how preposterous the whole rant is. He claims that he cannot renegotiate the power they grant to their government. But anyone in a democracy can become a politician and gain that power or a political activist and energise a base until the government starts negotiating. But it cannot be a person on their own. They must be able to convince many others. He just can't be bothered. So no facts or reality, just an extreme political opinion not discussing the article at all, which is precisely why these discussions aren't a good fit for a programming, tech and startup board. The post is very relevant, this thread, not.
- GuiA 13y ago
  You're not even trying. Maybe if you're "not even vaguely interested in [the] discussion", you shouldn't take part in it. Sure you can argue for or against the double edged sword that is government– and I'm sure most "reasonable people" would argue for it. But saying that the basic tenets that oleganza wrote about are wrong is patently lying to yourself. If you don't pay your taxes, don't agree with a court's verdict, don't pay a fine that you got– guess what, ultimately things will be resolved by holding you against your will in a little concrete cell, and if you try to get out of it, violence will be used against you. > But anyone in a democracy can become a politician and gain that power or a political activist Have you been following the news recently? Do you see what happens to activists? As for the argument "anyone can become politician and have power", I find staring at the pictures on this page to be pretty self-explanatory wrt that argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_... You can dismiss it all if you want, but you're only fooling yourself.