Onko Suomessa esiintyvä anti-amerikkalaisuus jotenkin selitettävissä englanninkielisessä tekstissä esiintulevassa ajattelutapojen erossa?
Puhutaan tietysti vuosikymmenien mittaisesta ajatusten muokkauksesta.
Why Authoritarians and Collectivists Say "Self-Defense Is A Crime"
by Johann Opitz
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of life is a crime
because the individual is a subject, not a citizen, of the state -- i.e.,
the state owns the individual. Since only the owner of property may
legally exercise the rights of ownership, the individual, therefore, has no right to decide if he/she is to live or die; only the state may make that decision.
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of liberty is a crime since such self-defense clearly places the individual's rights sovereign over the interests of any group -- most especially over the interests of the authoritarians and collectivists.
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of property is clearly a crime because such self-defense is an injustice against the "poor" thief who is only trying to sustain him/herself in the world of "greedy and uncaring" capitalists who supposedly oppose "economic equality and justice."
In Europe the law favors the criminal by insisting the victim is suppose to escape or not resist. The authoritarians and collectivists here are now trying to impose the same attitude toward self-defense. The collectivist's argument is that no individual has the right to be judge and jury, taking the law into their own hands and punishing the criminal -- that only the state can pass judgment upon a criminal and impose a sentence.
The common criminal prefers unarmed victims; criminal politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Once disarmed, the citizens are no longer citizens -- they are just mere subjects of those who control collective power (law enforcement and the military) -- because they are no longer empowered to be "judge and jury" over the state, pass judgment upon criminal politicians, and impose a sentence.
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
Puhutaan tietysti vuosikymmenien mittaisesta ajatusten muokkauksesta.
Why Authoritarians and Collectivists Say "Self-Defense Is A Crime"
by Johann Opitz
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of life is a crime
because the individual is a subject, not a citizen, of the state -- i.e.,
the state owns the individual. Since only the owner of property may
legally exercise the rights of ownership, the individual, therefore, has no right to decide if he/she is to live or die; only the state may make that decision.
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of liberty is a crime since such self-defense clearly places the individual's rights sovereign over the interests of any group -- most especially over the interests of the authoritarians and collectivists.
In an authoritarian/collectivist state, self-defense of property is clearly a crime because such self-defense is an injustice against the "poor" thief who is only trying to sustain him/herself in the world of "greedy and uncaring" capitalists who supposedly oppose "economic equality and justice."
In Europe the law favors the criminal by insisting the victim is suppose to escape or not resist. The authoritarians and collectivists here are now trying to impose the same attitude toward self-defense. The collectivist's argument is that no individual has the right to be judge and jury, taking the law into their own hands and punishing the criminal -- that only the state can pass judgment upon a criminal and impose a sentence.
The common criminal prefers unarmed victims; criminal politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Once disarmed, the citizens are no longer citizens -- they are just mere subjects of those who control collective power (law enforcement and the military) -- because they are no longer empowered to be "judge and jury" over the state, pass judgment upon criminal politicians, and impose a sentence.
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
Vastaukset 2
Vanhimmat
..en tiedä tuosta mutta uskoisin suurimman syyn jenkkien taloudelliseen ylivaltaan olevan heidän oikeusjärjestelmässään joka antaa edes toivon, vaikkei käytännössä toimisikaan, oikeudesta.
Kyllähän sen kaikki tietää, että jenkit on henkisesti keskenkasvuisia.
Antaa lapsien pitää aseensa, niin niitä voikin sitten käskeä ja komentaa ihan miten lystää.
Onhan noita suomessakin, mukuloita jotka ylpistelevät seinällään roikkuvista aseista, ja sitten kännispäissään sattuvat pamauttamaan jonkun hengiltä (lataamattomalla aseellahan ei ole ollenkaan hauskaa leikkiä...)