The Gun is Civilization

[Brian Blackwell]

Cain killed his brother Abel with a stone, was that the beginning of us being civilized?

Abel having a stone too would have been a civilizing influence because it would have made Cain think twice, or at least have given Abel a fighting chance of negating that act of immoral violence. That’s the point of the article.

There were stones all around him to use......? He just believed in Reasoning......as the way to settle disputes..... after all God's gift to us that was different than other animals was Words.....not large and sharp killing teeth or three inch long claws.....

The Word.

Words, thoughts, reasoning, logic.....was suppose to be our defense.... So it seems?

Of course. That’s morality. No one is suggesting aggressive violence, only defense force during this interim time when some acknowledge moral law and others have yet to embrace this understanding.

Eventually, it may very well be possible to have a world without guns entirely, but in the meantime, the wise are too valuable to allow themselves to be sacrificed to the sin of the Godless heathen.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Totalitarian regimes like the Democrats want to install always disarm the law abiding populace. That way they can use the barrel of a gun as a threat to easily control them. Say something they don't like (Hate Speech), and they will show up at your door, with guns, and take you to a prison, Gulag, or worse. It is happening right now in Europe, and Asia. Don't say it can't happen here also.

I agree, though it’s a half-truth to propose that the right is exempt from totalitarian thinking.

Either governmental authority is valid, or it is not. If you understand that it is not, you are a voluntaryist, an anarchist, a freedom advocate. If you believe that it is, you accept authoritarian rule, and there is no logic to the idea of a “limited government”. If they are authority, they have a valid right to make the rules - even to the extent of complete totalitarian control.

The common belief that there is some valid middle ground is simply cognitive dissonance. It’s saying “they are authority, but only where we say so” which means they are not authority at all, we are. And if we are, then we can never be obliged to obey them, thus we are anarchists pretending to be otherwise.

 

[Pilot1]

^^^^^^Government authority is valid up until it starts violating you're inalienable rights.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

^^^^^^Government authority is valid up until it starts violating you're inalienable rights.

Absolutely, though that means it actually has no authority at all. Authority means having the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the so-called “authority” would be indistinguishable from anyone else.

And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations. So to distinguish itself as authority, government must draw from the pool of non-rights, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

This is obviously invalid, as per your own definition, since it’s claiming rights violations as special “rights” exclusive to itself.

 

[Pilot1]

Absolutely, though that means it actually has no authority at all. Authority means having the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the so-called “authority” would be indistinguishable from anyone else.

And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations. So to distinguish itself as authority, government must draw from the pool of non-rights, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

This is obviously invalid, as per your own definition, since it’s claiming rights violations as special “rights” exclusive to itself.

Your thoughts are concise, and articulate, but I disagree. I don't think authority is all or nothing. I think there can be such a thing as limited authority IF, and only IF the People have the right to protest, and ultimately change what they believe is overly restrictive, or wrong.

I do agree that we are moving towards an all or nothing model though, and both parties want that, albeit, one maybe a bit more slowly.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Absolutely, though that means it actually has no authority at all. Authority means having the right to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the so-called “authority” would be indistinguishable from anyone else.

And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations. So to distinguish itself as authority, government must draw from the pool of non-rights, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

This is obviously invalid, as per your own definition, since it’s claiming rights violations as special “rights” exclusive to itself.

Your thoughts are concise, and articulate, but I disagree. I don't think authority is all or nothing. I think there can be such a thing as limited authority IF, and only IF the People have the right to protest, and ultimately change what they believe is overly restrictive, or wrong.

I do agree that we are moving towards an all or nothing model though, and both parties want that, albeit, one maybe a bit more slowly.

Much obliged for the kind words!

The nature of authority is that it is one-sided. For the sake of argument, let's consider the parent who claims authority over their child. There is no consent or input required on the part of the child for any of the decisions the parent makes. The child may petition the parent, but the parent is the ultimate decision-maker in all matters. They may consider or ignore the protests of the child at their own discretion.

The right to protest is not relevant to authority, though the right to actually change the behavior of the so-called "authority" obviates that authority entirely. What's being described by this scenario is the people having authority over government, but choosing to act in accord with governmental dictates. The party with whom the ultimate choice resides is the authority.

Like a parent playing a game of role-reversal with a child, the people merely pretend that government has authority. And this "pretending" makes sense if we continue the examination to its ultimate conclusion, since authority does not actually exist. Man is born free; he is a being of autonomous will. No man can think his thoughts or move his limbs but himself. This inherent quality is the foundation for morality.

Immoral action is that which does not duly recognize the reality of man's inherent freedom. We call this behavior "wrong" because it is incorrect by way of this denial; whereas man's "rights" are those actions which correctly acknowledge this reality, both in regard to himself, and others.

 

[Pilot1]

^^^^^^Anytime! Enjoy your posts, as they make me think.

Well fortunately, Kids can't vote, but we can, so that is where we can change what we don't like in theory anyway. That is our limited means of limiting the authority of our government. That and protesting to create public outcry, and Media attention which politicians do bend to sometimes.

In the long term, no matter the party, is the government going to do what the government is going to do? Absolutely. Then we have some tough decisions to make.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In the long term, no matter the party, is the government going to do what the government is going to do? Absolutely. Then we have some tough decisions to make.

Indeed. Sometimes the simplest decisions are the toughest to make.

 

[kaz]

Some humans are incapable of being civilized...Now what is the definition of civilized being used?

Whatsawhosits, broken English boy?