4 ms·

I can't help your moral quandary, but the rationalization should really go both ways in that both technologies give the populous some measure of control against

by ddod 12y ago

I can't help your moral quandary, but the rationalization should really go both ways in that both technologies give the populous some measure of control against a possibly oppressive government (be it minuscule and ineffective or not). The right to bear arms in the constitution wasn't written for hunters-- it was written as another check and balance for the government.

stvswn 12y ago
Agreed, and this point is often misunderstood by gun control advocates in the US (it's completely unfathomable outside of the US). Saying "I don't like that guns are used to kill people, therefore I'm okay with guns meant for hunting but these guns designed for people should be regulated or banned" completely misses the point. The Lockean philosophy behind the 2nd amendment is that individuals should have the means to protect themselves independent of (and even from) the state. We need guns in case we need to lead another revolution. Similarly, the state should always be aware that its citizens have the capacity to revolt effectively. We know that having this right means bad things will happen -- guns will be available for criminals to use, for example. If you believe in Liberal gun rights, you think that the evil that happens when guns are freely available is an acceptable price to pay for an important freedom. In the same way, that's why we need Tor -- because citizens need to be able to communicate and organize absent of government surveillance and interference. Tor is not important "even though" it can be used to avoid law enforcement. It is important "because" it can be used to evade law enforcement, because one day we may have to. I mean, of course, a purely hypothetical revolution. I am serious when I say, however, that the framers of the Constitution wanted future US governments to be constrained by the power of the citizens, and so they gave the citizens guns. They also guaranteed the right to assembly and free association (1st amendment) and the right to be free from search or seizure (4th amendment). Inter-citizen communication free from government surveillance is implied there, I think.

by ddod 12y ago

stvswn 12y ago

Agreed, and this point is often misunderstood by gun control advocates in the US (it's completely unfathomable outside of the US). Saying "I don't like that guns are used to kill people, therefore I'm okay with guns meant for hunting but these guns designed for people should be regulated or banned" completely misses the point. The Lockean philosophy behind the 2nd amendment is that individuals should have the means to protect themselves independent of (and even from) the state. We need guns in case we need to lead another revolution. Similarly, the state should always be aware that its citizens have the capacity to revolt effectively. We know that having this right means bad things will happen -- guns will be available for criminals to use, for example. If you believe in Liberal gun rights, you think that the evil that happens when guns are freely available is an acceptable price to pay for an important freedom. In the same way, that's why we need Tor -- because citizens need to be able to communicate and organize absent of government surveillance and interference. Tor is not important "even though" it can be used to avoid law enforcement. It is important "because" it can be used to evade law enforcement, because one day we may have to. I mean, of course, a purely hypothetical revolution. I am serious when I say, however, that the framers of the Constitution wanted future US governments to be constrained by the power of the citizens, and so they gave the citizens guns. They also guaranteed the right to assembly and free association (1st amendment) and the right to be free from search or seizure (4th amendment). Inter-citizen communication free from government surveillance is implied there, I think.