Indeed, but that’s the point. You put no guardrails around the notion of a purported right to resist. I was testing the implications of this unfettered-ness.
It would be easier if you could clarify, precisely, the limits of this ‘right to resist’ you’re positing.
I’m not arguing that it’s inherently immoral to stop people at the border. Rather, I’m arguing that 1) we are responsible for the moral implications of how we go about stopping them, and 2) separating children from their parents as a means of deterrence is immoral–‘evil,’ in the words of Erick Erickson.
I really, really hope you don’t mean this. Desperate people do desperate things. Could you really stand over the shattered body of a child and say “Darwin”? As an American, would you really be OK with such a policy being prosecuted in your name?
Ah. This is quite different from what I thought you were talking about. Yes, I would agree that an individual’s right to their own personhood and fundamental autonomy grants them the right to resist (with violence) being enslaved.
So the Jews should have kept their guns? How would that have worked out? They were going to say no to people who had no issue with killing their women and children?
Let’s go to an extreme hypothetical. You have been lined up against the wall. 20 Military goons with fully automatic weapons are having a brief laugh at your pitiful predicament. They make it no secret they are a moment away from tearing you to pieces with their guns. You have the pistol in your pocket your already executed uncle slipped into your pocket. You know you are dead, regardless. It is admittedly futile as an effort to preserve your life. Maybe you don’t even bother with the effort. However, surely, if you DID choose to pull the pistol out and try to take one of them out before being ripped to shreds, it would be an exercise of a fundamental right? My point is that futility does not mean you would not have that right to at least take that shot.
Because ultimately firearms are a source of power. What they truly mean irt defense is “I need to protect my people/stuff from those people/things.” People/stuff and people/things are highly subjective.
That’s one of the most powerful aspects of religion. It creates a common bond that would normally necessitate being part of the physical defense (nationalism).
For some people “my people and those people” equate to members of the right and left even within the country. I’ve got plenty of family that specifically doesn’t want yur guns touched because the dirty liberals are trying to take over the country.
If anyone has argued the opposite–that, for some reason, the utility of an act plays a role in determining whether one has a right to engage in it–I have missed it.
There has been some argument that since it would be impossible to militarily defeat a modern oppressive/tyrannical regime as an insurgency, that the principle behind the 2nd is outdated silliness. I don’t believe it is ever silly. Be it futile or not to defend oneself from truly oppressive/brutal circumstances.
What’s funny is that the Nazis portrayed Jews as traitors but when their own study showed that they were overrepresented not simply in the military but as part of combat units they had to scrap publishing their findings. Many veteran groups in Germany were actually angered by the Nazis attempt to besmirch WW1 vets.