Monday, July 18, 2022

You can't aim a government

I saw a "progressive liberal" (his words) claim that government and guns are both just tools. If you can be anti-government, you can be anti-gun. This was in the context of claiming that libertarians could be anti-gun (by which he implied they could support anti-gun legislation, not just have a personal preference).

There are a couple of problems with this.

The government he described is not merely a government, but a state. A political government. States are not defensive. You can't use a state for defense without harming the innocent-- "collateral damage". I recently saw another statist-- a "conservative" one-- claim that this is just because states-- political governments-- are a "necessary evil".

He then posted a link to an essay describing how civilizations and societies form and grow, not realizing that society is the opposite of the state.

Bad guys will use a gun or a state to violate others. A good guy will only use a gun defensively and will accept responsibility if he inadvertently harms the innocent in the process. A good guy can't use a state without harming the innocent, and wouldn't be able to pay restitution to all those he harmed by doing so anyway. So, would he use a state at all? If he does, can he still be considered a good guy?

Trying to use a state defensively will fail because it can't be aimed, it doesn't hit what you're aiming at even if you try, people are forced to pay for this tool and ammunition against their will, and it is "illegal" to defend yourself from those using a state against you. It's like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of a smattering of Nazis in a city. It might work, but only an idiot would believe it's the right thing to do.


Please support the Tobbles Memorial Cat & Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon