|
Tias posted:Also, there is not necessarily basis for claiming that anarchism is coercive when "encountering" people who do not share their views on collectivism. Sure, they would not cooperate with non-collectivists, but after that the only coercion would happen when the individualists attempted to convince them by force, and they retaliate.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I say it has a lot to do with it because showing that you have a massive force with which to defend yourself is in and of itself a form of force. If everyone has a gun with them at all times then it does become a stagnant object. Like underwear. The guns aren't supposed to be in your hand, it's just that everybody is supposed to know (or really it is just implied) that you have one. I'd think that if everyone had a gun that there's be some slacker out there that always left his at home because "Hey everybody else has theirs, right?" and it would become a burden to most. It would be like if you had to carry a hammer around with you all the time "just in case". There are people who do it but most don't feel the need. Then out of the ones who did want to carry their hammer, there'd be the ones who chose the "pound o'matic" super sledge with attachments and the ones who choose to carry their little rock hammer. Just like the gun, the hammer would be good to have around in certain circumstances, but most of the time would be extra weight. All in all I guess, just keep your hammer at home folks, I have one too. I don't want to see yours. In any case the whole gun thing always seemed silly to me because of all that. If everyone has a gun and is willing to use it, besides the level of violence implied by using a gun, how is it that different than nobody at all having a gun but willing to stop crime with physical violence? This also goes back to the libertarian idea of everyone being a rational person.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 10:19
|
|