Comment: Come on Sam -- the question is not absurd

(See in situ)


Come on Sam -- the question is not absurd

Having ONE EXAMPLE would be more than enough to counter-argue my main point: "that guns in he hands of mostly non-survival-skill havin' 5th generation non-farmer fantasy football / tail gate partying couch potatoes (mostly)" IS NOT going to stop a tech-driven (highly skilled) mech-driven -- just plain driven -- Modern Military.

As I said they will not shoot American's they are "controlling us" now *looks out side to watch the revolution* "doh! there is no revolution"

All's people talk about on DP (everywhere RP-fans are) is how the "evil they" control the currency (the valuation mechanism for all assets).

If they wanted to turn the screws it would not begin with boots on the ground -- they'd do via price setting or manipulation. Forcing us to sell assets or go deeper in debt.

The "boom bust cycle" RP talks about is how they control us.

I just don't know how this conversation turned from Mises "consumer-sovereignty" (RP's mentor) into "gun-sovereignty" (as a means to keep gov't at bay?).

Has "our guns" kept gov't from destroying the dollar? destroying the worth of our assets? off-shoring jobs? starting foreign wars?

Nope!

I'm not arguing for gun control either (of any sort). I'm just saying guns don't solve shizat.

RP said: "Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade [people that trade] with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. ... Trade is much more profitable. Also, trade and friendship apply much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example."

Once we see "voting and lobbying" as the predecessor to gun-policy, to war-policy, to pricing-policy, to foreign-policy -- and that voting-lobbying is abdication-bribery then and ONLY then will we understand how to keep a gov't at bey.

Now if I'm wrong here then RP is wrong and Mises is wrong because I'm making their argument with minor extrapolations/expansions in basic free-market theory.