• bi_tux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    no, it’s not something good, look at Honkong, Tibet, Russia, Iran, Belarus, etc.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Are you advocating for multiple, competing armed groups in the US?

      Generally, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is considered a cornerstone of “government”.

      • bi_tux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I don’t like the government, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist. that means different syndicates would be armed and they’d probably be competing, so yeah, I’m advocating for multiple armed forces

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Cool. That’s a coherent political philosophy, you just don’t normally run into people arguing for more legitimate use of violence.

          Personally, multiple armed entities sounds like the worst aspects of government without the redeeming aspects.

          I’m the breed of anarchist more concerned with involuntary power hierarchy than specific forms of said dynamic, like class. Reducing the number of groups who can coerce others into doing stuff isn’t aligned with more legitimate armed factions.
          I voted for my sherrif, so I’m more okay with him pointing a gun a me than your trade union, whom I didn’t vote for. It’s not wholly voluntary because I didn’t get to vote for “disarm the sheriff and make the fire fighters the principle law enforcement group”, so it’s far from perfect, but at least I know who’s holding the gun.