Nostr Web Client

Replying to jhog57

if ukrainians really would have wanted to win the war they would have allowed 3D printing their own guns, free gun sales and the whole shebang, making sure that property rights are valid for all ukrainians and that all ukrainians had a fair chance of defending their own lives and their own property

they are not going to do that

not even planned

not even in a pipeline

the only thing which gives hope is that they haven’t yet banned anarchist books and gatherings like russia did, if that would have happened they wouldn’t have any moral high ground left

Peter Todd 4mo ago 💬 2

😂

That is what Ukraine is doing. There's an insane amount of 3d printing for defense going on with hundreds of groups building new drone and other weapons designs every week. Literally: a lot of this stuff is iterated on weekly or biweekly basis, with new designs constantly shipped out.

What people don't do is 3d print guns themselves: that's a stupid use of the technology as lots of excellent guns are available on the mass market. Ukraine is not short on guns.

If you have money and want to build weapons to kill Russians, Ukraine is the place to do it.

The issue is not property rights. No-one is in a position to actually defend themselves against an invading army. That's just not how war at this scale works. Defense by itself simply doesn't work: you can't stop Russia from taking your land by holding your ground. No weapon strong enough exists. You stop Russia from taking your land by working with others to counterattack and respond dynamically. That only works at big scale.

Libertarian ideas around war are simply stupid. War does not work that way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jhog57 4mo ago

cute mental gymnastics but centralized army couldn’t possibly be dynamic by its nature and by definition

it is heavy, it is bulky, it needs time to move, time to react, time to adjust, calling it dynamic is ridiculous, compared to what? other centralized armies? oh yeah, right.

there couldn’t possibly be anything with a swifter more dynamic response than YOU

YOU are the first line of defense, and if that first line fails, you no longer need the police, you no longer need your army, you no longer need to wait for NATO or some other alliances or friends from across the ocean, because for YOU it is over, YOU are dead

saying that civilians couldn’t do shit so let’s not give them a chance, benefits who exactly?

go ahead and try to get a hold of a territorial unit if a gun muzzle is hanging from every other window of every residential buildings there. I dare you.

every wave, every battalion and your whole army will find their graves there, as they should

and the town will keep standing until you level it all down to the ground

only way to capture Switzerland or Texas is a complete fuckin genocide.

capturers know that and prefer not to, since book definition of a genocide isn’t exactly popular, plus they’ve seen fierce resistance examples from countries with even lower firearms saturation such as Finland during the winter war and they sure don’t want a war they will naturally lose

bitter truth is that the war wouldn’t have happened in the first place if ukrainians had the courage to trust their own people

but looking at your post I am thinking it might take lots and lots of time for plenty of folks to even begin admitting it

Peter Todd 4mo ago 💬 2

Dude, you realize that in 2022 right after the invasion started Ukraine freely gave assault rifles and ammo to every man and woman who wanted them. A large part of why the initial invasion attempt failed is because of a quick decentralized defense.

But that only goes so far. Ukraine is up against an enemy that is perfectly able to mass huge amounts of force in a single location to break through. Ukraine needs to be able to respond to that. And that's not possible without wider scale coordination.

Re: "complete fucking genocide", that's exactly what Russia has done in Ukraine. In Bucha civilians were simply mass murdered by the hundreds. Russia has no qualms responding to resistance by simply flattening cities with artillery and airpower. Hell, just the other day Russia used multiple cruise missiles to flatten an apartment building, killing 30 people.

Speaking of, how exactly are "3d printed guns" going to stop cruise missiles? 3d printed drones actually do stop shahed drones. But again, that's not some decentralized effort. A big part of making that work is centralized organization: you can't put AA assets everywhere. You need top down organization to figure out how to move them dynamically to be in the best place to intercept each attack.

jhog57 4mo ago

if you ask me, I’d say private individuals should be able to own fully functioning fighter jets and war planes, similar to how it’s done in the US but an actual functioning units

well, yeah, you can’t do much against an ICBM, it largely is a demoralization type of device, it sure could and it does kills lots of people at once, but the demoralization aspect of it is even bigger and you are going for miles to expand on that fear. it is just it is something you can’t exactly win a war with either, because there is not much of a point of turning a country into a a wasteland as it will become unusable

sure, there will still be plenty of resources, but not much people you can use to harvest them

I don’t necessarily agree that the centralized army should be completely eradicated or abolished momentarily, that will surely help your enemy, but am strongly against less guns=less violence narrative, for disarming everyone EXCEPT for the government and am sure is against collectively owning firearms through government EXCLUSIVELY, I hope you do understand that

what I am saying is to keep your 2nd line of defense (your police, your army, your allies) but make ABSOLUTE SURE that your 1st line of defense, an armed trained and prepared individual to be there as a first and foremost priority

again, I also am against fear mongering for ICBMs and using that as an argument for disarmament, I just don’t see how would it promote any conclusion other than “we better disarm and give up if we want to live”

Peter Todd 4mo ago 💬 2

No, ICBMs, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles are not just "demoralization" devices. They're highly effective, if expensive, ways to take out critical assets that you need to win wars.

Long range drones as well. Russia is sending waves of hundreds of propeller (and increasingly jet) powered drones that each can deliver an ~50kg explosive payload. If not for anti-air defenses, each one of those drones could result in important infrastructure being taken out.

Leave war up to the experts who are actually fighting it. You don't have a clue how this actually works in reality.

jhog57 4mo ago

yes, leave the war to experts who are printing money and take the guns away from the people cause stupid cause i’ll equipped cause lack of skills cause can’t be trusted

that is the way to do it

someone else will take care of it, no need to worry about personal responsibility

Peter Todd 4mo ago 💬 2

Like I said, Ukraine was straight up giving out guns, and they've been liberalizing their gun ownership laws resulting in significantly more gun ownership than before. Gun culture is all over the place too: shooting ranges are popular, including with children. Hell, I've even seen a vendor setup a air soft rifle with Putin as a target, literally in the main central square of Lviv. The police didn't care one bit, other than to complement one gun on his particularly accurate shooting.

Re: "printing money", lol. Ukraine is one of the better places to be in Europe for bitcoiners. You can exchange without any AML/KYC in unlimited quantities. There's even services that'll send an armored van right to your door to do crypto exchanges.

jhog57 4mo ago

for reply that you have left, I respect the effort deeply, I really hope that Ukraine has a chance and I honestly hope for it to win and show better example not only for both EU and russia but for the rest of the continent too

jhog57 4mo ago

by the way, how are you dealing with the fact that a 4th to 5th grader could figure out how to make his own firearms from scratch with only the school courses of physics and chemistry even without manuals or instructions? not to mention kids which were raised in a household with a 3D printer?

do you think that the school courses of chemistry and physics needs to be dumbed down so that the kids will never have a clue? perhaps school POUH LIECE or psych squads to interview kids regularly while reporting any deviations?

or should we teach kids gun safety since they are 14 like it was in the 60s and 70s in the US?

do you know that the kind of policies you are setting up are affecting people’s behavior?

what kind of behavior do you think is being established when you are teaching kids from the young age on how to handle a firearm while making it obvious for them that their classmates, their peers are in fact their buddies, that they held a gun together and realized in practice that those peers never have intentions to hurt them. that their government is trusting them by default and telling it to them explicitly that their citizens could be trusted even with the most deadliest weapons by default.

what kind of society do you think you can call that? does that sound like a high trust society to you? well it is, because that is the definition of high trust society, society in which the trust is granted by default, a kind of society that doesn’t assume for you to be guilty by default.

on the other hand, what kind of thinking, what kind of mindset do you think you are breeding when you are telling those same exact kids that their peers couldn’t be possibly trusted to hold a firearm cause they will instantly murder each other? that the citizens they walk those streets with couldn’t possibly be trustworthy UNLESS verified by the government. society which assumes guilt by default unless proven otherwise?

could you possibly call it a high trust society? is that something worth striving for?