“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a gun and other men will feed him for a lifetime.”—J. R. “Bob” Dobbs quoted by me in the book Revelation X.
Being the guy with the gun who gets into the shelter is an assurance that society will endure. Specifically the oldest form of society. Not necessarily the nicest one.
Being the guy with the gun who gets into the shelter is an assurance that society will endure
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Do you mean that not bringing a gun into the shelter makes society-in-general less likely to survive? If so, would you mind expanding on your reasoning?
Thank you for your question. I’m saying that society is formed by violence. If someone has the means and opportunity to commit violence then society is the motivation that our species and the species we come from have yet to say no to. I can have a nice disagreement online with strangers because police and military groups (paid for with taxes extracted with threats of violence) stand ready to use violence to stop those who would use violence to stop my nice disagreement. Further, the distribution of the means of violence will influence the society formed. If you’re the guy with the gun in the bunker you get to say what kind of society.
Egoism is a philosophy that says no to society, placing the individual (specifically, me) as the greatest good. My book of essays on egoism is approaching publication and I look forward to criticism and analysis of it at Less Wrong.
Interesting. I don’t think egoism is likely to do anything for me, but your reasoning about the question at hand makes some sense. I would quibble, though, that in a situation where large numbers of people are aware of an impending disaster, you’re essentially playing a very large coordination game, wherein the most stable society is achieved by having a small-but-nonzero number of people with guns. This leads me to question the wisdom of deciding to yourself take a gun with you, especially given the typical survivalist’s fondness for firearms.
Of course, if you live in a geographical area with vanishingly few gun-toting survivalists, it might make more sense given your premises.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a gun and other men will feed him for a lifetime.”—J. R. “Bob” Dobbs quoted by me in the book Revelation X.
Being the guy with the gun who gets into the shelter is an assurance that society will endure. Specifically the oldest form of society. Not necessarily the nicest one.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Do you mean that not bringing a gun into the shelter makes society-in-general less likely to survive? If so, would you mind expanding on your reasoning?
Thank you for your question. I’m saying that society is formed by violence. If someone has the means and opportunity to commit violence then society is the motivation that our species and the species we come from have yet to say no to. I can have a nice disagreement online with strangers because police and military groups (paid for with taxes extracted with threats of violence) stand ready to use violence to stop those who would use violence to stop my nice disagreement. Further, the distribution of the means of violence will influence the society formed. If you’re the guy with the gun in the bunker you get to say what kind of society.
Egoism is a philosophy that says no to society, placing the individual (specifically, me) as the greatest good. My book of essays on egoism is approaching publication and I look forward to criticism and analysis of it at Less Wrong.
Thank you again.
Interesting. I don’t think egoism is likely to do anything for me, but your reasoning about the question at hand makes some sense. I would quibble, though, that in a situation where large numbers of people are aware of an impending disaster, you’re essentially playing a very large coordination game, wherein the most stable society is achieved by having a small-but-nonzero number of people with guns. This leads me to question the wisdom of deciding to yourself take a gun with you, especially given the typical survivalist’s fondness for firearms.
Of course, if you live in a geographical area with vanishingly few gun-toting survivalists, it might make more sense given your premises.