[ExI] Tooth and Claw (was ccp struggles)

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 17:54, The Avantguardian via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 12:54:26 AM PDT, Stathis Papaioannou via
> extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> >> In theory, because it is the duty of the criminal justice system to do
> so. In Mexico, however, the well-armed drug cartels and the police seldom
> clash and instead they usually victimize the unarmed citizens. Low hanging
> fruit and all.
>
> > The Mexican drug cartels are organised and have huge amounts of money to
> spend on weapons. This is what it would take to oppose the Government; but
> as in Mexico, there would then be the problem of what such a militia would
> do with the power.
>
> That is a common misconception. The 2nd Amendment is not about opposing
> the government, it is about BEING the government. Perhaps there is
> something you don't quite get about Americans. It is something that many
> Americans don't get about themselves because they try to interpret the 2nd
> Amendment in a vacuum. One has to take into account not just the
> Constitution but also the Declaration of Independence:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
> secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
> just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
> Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
> to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
> foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
> them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>
> The founding principle of America is that the people ARE the government.
> Whereas other countries have rulers, we Americans have representatives. In
> other words, we consent to be governed by our equals (i.e. morally
> equivalent peers) for the sake of schools and highways and the common good.
> But an armed person and an unarmed person are not equal, they cannot be,
> for one can coerce the other.
>
> Another way to think about it is this. Max Weber defined a state as an
> entity that maintained a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its
> borders. In most countries when there arises a group of people like an
> armed gang, cartel, militia, or terrorist organization, then that monopoly
> on violence is broken and the existence of the state is questioned. Here in
> the United States of America however, since we have a "government of the
> people, by the people, for the people", we prevent this from happening by
> allowing almost everyone to have access to weapons and be part of the
> militia. An all-inclusive monopoly on the legitimate use of force can never
> be broken. The use of force for self-defense is legitimatized by natural
> law.. At least that was the intent of the Founders as near as I can tell.
>
> In America, if you can't govern an armed populace, then you are not fit to
> govern.


I can see that you believe this, but it is not an idea that people
elsewhere in the world have, even if they support gun rights. It is like a
religious idea, which has the characteristic that it seems crazy to anyone
not already in the religion.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200417/04542c06/attachment.htm>