10 ms·

Armed soldiers are also stopping me from going to any country I want, without a visa. Should I start protesting about my right to travel any-fucking-where? You

Armed soldiers are also stopping me from going to any country I want, without a visa. Should I start protesting about my right to travel any-fucking-where? Your argument is silly. "Armed people" are just a tool to enforce policies enforced by governments. It is them, not the soldiers, we should be worried about.

oleganza 13y ago
Armed people are those who make the choice. Gun does not kill, Putin does not kill. Armed dude who can follow or not follow the orders kills. The whole point of my comments is that what is generally considered immoral (threatening and killing) becomes 180 degrees different when some man in a nice costume says so. Don't you think someone was bullshitting us? In my view, murder is never justified. Even in self-defense. However, in case of self-defense, you don't have much choice (and people around might understand you), while guys in the airport don't have any kind of attack and everyone can be peaceful and nice to each other and walk their way.
- xentronium 13y ago
  So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. At least we have some mechanisms to influence the armed guys we have now.
  - snitko 13y ago
    > In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. As scientifically established by hollywood movies. Brilliant.
    - xentronium 13y ago
      Do you deem it unreasonable?
    - seren 13y ago
      In places with lack of central government, (ruthless) armed group tends to become the de facto ruling regional organisations, like Somalia, Libya, etc. This is debatable that the lack of government is the only issue with these areas. However, I don't have examples who come to mind where the lack of central authority transitioned in a peaceful coexistence of different factions/regions/tribes.
      - snitko 13y ago
        Let's conduct a thought experiment: tomorrow everyone in the US wakes up and realizes there's no government, no cops, no army etc. And for the purity of the experiment, let's say there is no way to create a new government. Do you think it'll be like Syria or Somalia? Do you think the demand for security and peace will suddenly evaporate?
        enko 13y ago
        Let's toss in "no jobs" and "no food" to add a little pizzazz to your thought experiment.
        snitko 13y ago
        1. Government doesn't provide food 2. Government only provides SOME jobs Even if we assume that ALL people who can no longer be employed because government disappeared cannot find jobs, it would only demonstrate that they can't work on jobs no one wants to pay for voluntarily. That is, if people wouldn't need cops anymore, because (let's imagine) there was no crime - no one would pay to private protection agencies and they would have to find something else to do. "Jobs" are not the desirable result, it's "doing something valuable" that's important.
        enko 13y ago
        I think you'll find that the presence of effective, competent governance is pretty strongly correlated with the availability of both food and jobs. You missed my point, anyway, which is that your comfortable notions of a safe, orderly society will go right out the window once the economy breaks down, which it would if you removed the framework in which it operates, which is basically indistinguishable from government. "Any society is only three square meals away from revolution"
  - oleganza 13y ago
    If you are concerned about violent armed people, why do you support an idea of a massive hierarchy of violent armed people aka Government?
    - xentronium 13y ago
      Lesser evil principle.
      - snitko 13y ago
        So if someone demonstrated to you that any government is actually a bigger evil, would you consider changing your mind?
        xentronium 13y ago
        Yes. I don't know (and frankly, hardly imagine) of any societies without any hierarchies though. I could imagine communities with democratic collegial decision-making, but it still implies there is a way to enforce decisions, which means armed men.
arrrg 13y ago
Now, don’t get me wrong, it is typical braindead libertarian rhetoric, but there sort of is a valid point in there. I think one of the big injustices of our time we will look back to with disgust (like slavery 200 years ago) is not allowing people to go wherever they want to go. What gives us any right to deny people to live anywhere on the planet they want to? It’s just that I absolutely do not believe that abolishing (all or large parts of) government is any kind of solution to this. (And, yes, this would have often dire economic consequences for some. Just as abolishing slavery had dire economic consequences for some. Doing the right thing isn’t free.)
- oleganza 13y ago
  Lets have slavery as an example. You feel uncomfortable abolishing government completely. That's fine. How'd it work with slavery? Imagine we decide that slavery is not good. Should we just let every slave run away (at the expense of cotton plantation owners who'd immediately incur losses)? Or should we release every 10th slave this month, then every 9th next month etc.? Is it then moral to shoot down a slave who'll be freed two months from now, if he runs away today?

oleganza 13y ago

Armed people are those who make the choice. Gun does not kill, Putin does not kill. Armed dude who can follow or not follow the orders kills. The whole point of my comments is that what is generally considered immoral (threatening and killing) becomes 180 degrees different when some man in a nice costume says so. Don't you think someone was bullshitting us? In my view, murder is never justified. Even in self-defense. However, in case of self-defense, you don't have much choice (and people around might understand you), while guys in the airport don't have any kind of attack and everyone can be peaceful and nice to each other and walk their way.

xentronium 13y ago
So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. At least we have some mechanisms to influence the armed guys we have now.
- snitko 13y ago
  > In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. As scientifically established by hollywood movies. Brilliant.
  - xentronium 13y ago
    Do you deem it unreasonable?
  - seren 13y ago
    In places with lack of central government, (ruthless) armed group tends to become the de facto ruling regional organisations, like Somalia, Libya, etc. This is debatable that the lack of government is the only issue with these areas. However, I don't have examples who come to mind where the lack of central authority transitioned in a peaceful coexistence of different factions/regions/tribes.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Let's conduct a thought experiment: tomorrow everyone in the US wakes up and realizes there's no government, no cops, no army etc. And for the purity of the experiment, let's say there is no way to create a new government. Do you think it'll be like Syria or Somalia? Do you think the demand for security and peace will suddenly evaporate?
      - enko 13y ago
        Let's toss in "no jobs" and "no food" to add a little pizzazz to your thought experiment.
        snitko 13y ago
        1. Government doesn't provide food 2. Government only provides SOME jobs Even if we assume that ALL people who can no longer be employed because government disappeared cannot find jobs, it would only demonstrate that they can't work on jobs no one wants to pay for voluntarily. That is, if people wouldn't need cops anymore, because (let's imagine) there was no crime - no one would pay to private protection agencies and they would have to find something else to do. "Jobs" are not the desirable result, it's "doing something valuable" that's important.
        enko 13y ago
        I think you'll find that the presence of effective, competent governance is pretty strongly correlated with the availability of both food and jobs. You missed my point, anyway, which is that your comfortable notions of a safe, orderly society will go right out the window once the economy breaks down, which it would if you removed the framework in which it operates, which is basically indistinguishable from government. "Any society is only three square meals away from revolution"
- oleganza 13y ago
  If you are concerned about violent armed people, why do you support an idea of a massive hierarchy of violent armed people aka Government?
  - xentronium 13y ago
    Lesser evil principle.
    - snitko 13y ago
      So if someone demonstrated to you that any government is actually a bigger evil, would you consider changing your mind?
      - xentronium 13y ago
        Yes. I don't know (and frankly, hardly imagine) of any societies without any hierarchies though. I could imagine communities with democratic collegial decision-making, but it still implies there is a way to enforce decisions, which means armed men.

arrrg 13y ago

Now, don’t get me wrong, it is typical braindead libertarian rhetoric, but there sort of is a valid point in there. I think one of the big injustices of our time we will look back to with disgust (like slavery 200 years ago) is not allowing people to go wherever they want to go. What gives us any right to deny people to live anywhere on the planet they want to? It’s just that I absolutely do not believe that abolishing (all or large parts of) government is any kind of solution to this. (And, yes, this would have often dire economic consequences for some. Just as abolishing slavery had dire economic consequences for some. Doing the right thing isn’t free.)

oleganza 13y ago
Lets have slavery as an example. You feel uncomfortable abolishing government completely. That's fine. How'd it work with slavery? Imagine we decide that slavery is not good. Should we just let every slave run away (at the expense of cotton plantation owners who'd immediately incur losses)? Or should we release every 10th slave this month, then every 9th next month etc.? Is it then moral to shoot down a slave who'll be freed two months from now, if he runs away today?