Re: That's certainly a good question
Posted by diogenes on 2025-September-15 06:08:47, MondayIn reply to That's certainly a good question posted by LaudateAgno on 2025-September-14 19:46:14, Sunday
You claim to strain to imagine how "otherwise apparently decent and rational people" could follow "profoundly perverse lines of thought" that rationalise violence against political figures. May I draw attention to some recent comments on your part that may cast light on this conundrum:If your government seeks to curtail this responsibility [to bear arms], and if your government is of the modern Western pseudo-democratic quasi-representative variety, I would think your responsibility to maintain arms in potential defense against its tyranny should be obviously imperative.You defend the right, nay duty, to bear arms in order to defend society against "modern Western pseudo-democratic quasi-representative" government and the collapse into "totalitarianism". Maybe the assassin thought the same thing. The problem with arguing for the duty to bear arms on the basis of being able to violently dispatch political figures who pose a threat of "totalitarianism" is that others - maybe even "leftists" - might have a different idea of which figures represent a clear and present danger to society. Essentially, you can't argue for the privatisation of the means of political violence and then bemoan its foreseeable consequences.  |
Follow ups: