Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
The difference is that those who would fight would be fighting against a tyrannical regime for liberation. Russia didn't have a concept of proper, lawful liberation nor egalitarianism when it enacted its Civil War, other than one of class warfare, and they essentially traded one regime for another in hopes of enabling one group over another through government. That is distinct from the matter of maintaining one's property and person from a state which chooses to act through force to intrude upon your individual liberties. Nobody is saying that a rebellion by White Supremacists (or whoever) can't happen, but it isn't a reason to get rid of arms or to disregard any notion of property rights, or individual rights. Rebellion is necessary in the totalitarian regimes of the middle east, is it not? Could they get out of such regimes politically? Now the United States isn't at that point, but certianly first world countries aren't immune from an absolute government. Guns right now act as deterents. The government doesn't do what it wants through direct force because it knows that if it were to disregard the people on matters as well as their individual rights there would be opposition by a majority, not some secluded, minority "white supremacist" group. And no, I don't think such an issue is a "right-wing" issue. It's an issue of individual rights which all people, regardless of their ideology should secure. Because the only thing that we have to protect us against an out of control government is our rights, and the only way to secure these rights from a forceful entity is by force.
Also your solution to the food problem is less government, not more government, Your solution is to end government support, not to enact a ban on such foods. You give people the choice they deserve as free, adults to decide what they want to do with their own life without government factors. This is a good thing. Hence there must be a way to decline violence without giving government more powers. Which to me makes it seem silly to give the government the power to disarm the population.
|
That first statement is going to lead into a rhetorical circle. If Americans are trustworthy enough that we can believe that American guys with guns are motivated by the desire to enforce liberty, then why not trust the current wielders of legitimate force in America? You can either trust Americans who wield force, or you're admitting that some Americans are more trustworthy than others, which is a biased argument.
|
Who are the "current wielders of legitimate force in America"? Well they're the people, or at least they were initially suppose to be.
The state is not an exception of the people and it's subservient to ALL people, at least in a republic this is the case. Force is not acceptable at all, unless as a reactionary step, as per the definiton of the non-aggression axiom. This includes the state, specific groups, etc, etc. If a group initiates force then it is an enemy, and that includes the initiation of force by the state.
|
This is not what i was disputing. You were saying that if the American people were fighting an armed revolt, it would be for "better" reasons than other peoples have in the past, and that therefore they would be more trustworthy than other peoples in armed rebellion. I'm stating that if Americans are so trustworthy, than the government should be trustworthy, and therefore we shouldn't need weapons to use against the government if we're so righteous and responsible in the first place.
Americans are either responsible wielders of force, or they're not. The alternative is to say *some* Americans would be more responsible users of force than others, which is very slippery ground to tread on.
|
Not necessarily. Not all Americans care about liberty, egalitarianism, nor freedom. However; it is something well-known and strongly intertwined in our education system. This is something Russians didn't have. We have 800 years of history rooted from England and then expanded further telling us that liberalism (of the classic variety) is what we should strive for. Hence, a revolt for actual liberty is a reactionary process to force imposed by a state on one's individual rights or property. The Russians on the otherhand just transferred soveriegnty of a nation from one ideological group to another, with a fundamental restructure of how the government works. In the case of Americans the sovereignty lies with the people and is allocated to the government, and if the government decides to take that power by force, they will be met with force. There is no otherway, because force can't be fought with laws, when the entity which uses force makes the laws.
This is distinct from a white supremacist, because he's looking to use force on others which is not reactionary, but an initiation of force.
