525
protect yourself rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] verdare@beehaw.org 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I agree with the statement. But my vision for a peaceful future isn’t a perpetual Mexican standoff. Nor do I like the idea of political power and representation being directly proportional to one’s intent and capability to do violence.

Also, if owning firearms is a requirement for civic participation, what you’ve really just done is institute a tax that goes directly to gun manufacturers.

[-] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago

While I don’t want there to be a Mexican standoff future, the ability for a minority to protect themselves is insanely valuable. If you look back in American history, being armed was sometimes the reason why minorities were able to continue living.

This is because political power does come from the intent and capabilities of violence. While it’s disgusting to see paramilitary groups like the Klan trying to enforce white supremacy, people are often blind to the state’s use of violence for its own political power. And if the state is enforcing a hierarchical structure that places a minority on the bottom (much less the inherent hierarchy of the state), it’s probably a good idea to arm yourself if you are a minority.

That doesn’t mean we need we need to derive political power from the intent and capability to carry out violence, but as long as there are hierarchies, there will be violence to maintain them. And as long as that violence is aimed at you, being armed is not a bad idea.

[-] pokemaster787@ani.social 3 points 7 months ago

my vision for a peaceful future isn’t a perpetual Mexican standoff. Nor do I like the idea of political power and representation being directly proportional to one’s intent and capability to do violence.

The unfortunate reality is that all political power is derived from one's capability to do violence, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I pay my taxes because if I don't the federal government will forcefully take the money from me, or my other possessions. Yeah, arresting someone is "nonviolent" until that person just says "I'd prefer not to." Forcing someone to pay a fine is nonviolent until they say "I'd prefer not to."

It's the only motivator the government or any body of real power has at the end of the day. It's a bunch of social norms and agreements all backed by the understanding that you will be made to comply by force otherwise.

this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
525 points (100.0% liked)

196

16563 readers
2037 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS