7 ms·

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

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.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    1. Collective action makes progress a lot easier 2. Democracy is the least worst way to do it 3. I'm fine with violence not being a free market value I think you'll find that the large majority of people agree with the third point, and even without democracy, the will of the large majority will impose itself onto everyone except in very few cases.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      As I said in other threads, existence of things does not justify itself. The fact that majority of people can force anyone in minority to comply does not say anything about morality. I point out that people tell themselves that it is okay if majority seemingly "decide" to to allow someone to kill some people. I question that belief which oddly looks very similar to any religious dogma. You advocate for "progress" and "democracy is the lest worst". I'm fine with it, live your life and participate in democracy. But let me politely disagree with you. Will you not participate in "majority" that tries to kill me if I don't give them my stuff?
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?

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.
- rtpg 13y ago
  1. Collective action makes progress a lot easier 2. Democracy is the least worst way to do it 3. I'm fine with violence not being a free market value I think you'll find that the large majority of people agree with the third point, and even without democracy, the will of the large majority will impose itself onto everyone except in very few cases.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    As I said in other threads, existence of things does not justify itself. The fact that majority of people can force anyone in minority to comply does not say anything about morality. I point out that people tell themselves that it is okay if majority seemingly "decide" to to allow someone to kill some people. I question that belief which oddly looks very similar to any religious dogma. You advocate for "progress" and "democracy is the lest worst". I'm fine with it, live your life and participate in democracy. But let me politely disagree with you. Will you not participate in "majority" that tries to kill me if I don't give them my stuff?

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?