We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata slogan of the day The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
-Jeff Cooper
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’ve had the pleasure to train twice with Col. Jeff Cooper, and would recommend his writings to libertarians interested in gun rights issues.
Certainly true in this case, but the same reasoning shouldn’t be taken to ludicrous extremes. There is no moral use of nuclear weapons, amoral as they may be.
Lucas: What “case”? I’m not sure why you draw an extropolation from rifles to nuclear weapons. Rifles are, above else, an entirely individual weapon. He’s saying nothing at all about other weapons.
Take Cooper for what he says here, which is meant to stand alone.
I beg to differ Lucas. To use a nuclear weapon to deter another person from using a nuclear weapon, seems a moral ‘use’… but to deter credibly, one must indeed be prepared to use the weapon in retaliation if push comes to shove.
When you need a rifle, it is nice to have one. When you need a nuke that is nice, too.
Nice to have, obviously.
The United States’ use of nuclear waepons at the end of WWII was completely moral. It was as kind and generous an act as could have been imagined under the circumstances. Have you seen the FILMS of Japanese families jumping off cliffs, hand-in-hand on Okinawa and Saipan? The alternatives to the Truman approach to the end of the war were the Lemay “bomb ’em into the stone age” and the Halsey, ” the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell” approach. I remain proud of American courage and compassion in ending the war as quickly as possible and sparing as many lives as possible.
The United States’ use of nuclear waepons at the end of WWII was completely moral. It was as kind and generous an act as could have been imagined under the circumstances. Have you seen the FILMS of Japanese families jumping off cliffs, hand-in-hand on Okinawa and Saipan? The alternatives to the Truman approach to the end of the war were the Lemay “bomb ’em into the stone age” and the Halsey, ” the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell” approach. I remain proud of American courage and compassion in ending the war as quickly as possible and sparing as many lives as possible.
walk softly and carry a big stick