5 ms·
Given the choice between having to constantly fight the masses and having to sometimes fight a state that was designed to safeguard freedoms but sometimes infri
by jpzisme 9y ago
Given the choice between having to constantly fight the masses and having to sometimes fight a state that was designed to safeguard freedoms but sometimes infringes upon them, I'll take the latter.
A quick look at how the natural world works is a good enough deterrent: https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoThis seems like a false dichotomy. Finding the right balance between individual autonomy and working together for mutual benefit might be a better way to frame it. >A quick look at how the natural world works is a good enough deterrent: https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/ What does this prove? No being can survive without destroying another being. Moreover, no plant or animal has threatened the entire Earth moreso than nuclear armed States
- durgiston 9y agocounterpoint: nuclear-armed USSR, and since then nuclear armed former Soviet Republics with poor nuclear security, definitely including Russia in this. second-counterpoint: global warming is also bad, actually damaging the earth instead of potentially damaging it.
- jerf 9y ago"Moreover, no plant or animal has threatened the entire Earth moreso than nuclear armed States" Cyanobacteria have accomplished far more than we have on that front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event