Sign into an existing account

The second amendment was a reminder to patriots and tyrants about what needs doing and how. Tyrants have gotten overconfident.

The only thing that is real is the concrete (physical), the abstract (non-physical) is only important when physical acts are performed in the name of it such that there are consequences, positive or negative, for modifying one's conduct to keep in alignment with what these abstractions would prefer from us.

In the end, everyone acts selfishly, every decision is made based primarily upon the way their choices would affect them personally, we just arbitrarily state that some self-serving motivations don't count as selfishness, and that is where te myth of altruism comes from.

It's selfish to do something for drugs, but not for the hit of dopamine that comes with the doing of a "good deed", selfish to do something for money, but not for the social credit (ignore how the CCP has institutionalized that term) that is arguably an even better currency than the medium of exchange.

Society is basically a big game of pretend: We pretend that morals and laws are real things, We pretend that certain people have a special status that enables them to do things which for all others would fall outside of common morality and the law, in the name of enforcing compliance to those same ethical and legal rules.

A lot of conservatives have missed the memo that their civilization is illusory, based on trust and compliance, they think things like laws and titles are real things, they've mistaken the abstract with a concrete expression for the idea that the abstract is itself a concrete thing (it is not, literally opposite to it).

It's for this reason that they commit so hard to losing strategies because they misplace their trust in people and institutions which the conservatives assume to have some compulsions that they in truth do not have, and never had, they fail to realize that people will do whatever they think serves them best, and unless some authority figure has a boss who incentivizes them to do otherwise, if their political interests run counter to yours, they will not do anything that they think will aid your cause, they will instead use their position to block you from making gains for your political goals, and if they are able they will abuse the power of their authority to actively harm your political movement.

All it takes for them to ignore or break the rules is for the people who could punish them or hold them accountable to refuse or fail to do so, and if they are both of the same mind politically, knowing that it's you, with an opposing ideology on the other end, they are almost guaranteed to do so, it's consequences that make people do things, not duties or obligations or vows or oaths, they are just people, their titles are meaningless unless people are willing to go along with the society sustaining charade that they bear some significance.

The whole reason we have a justice system and not just a set of laws is because we know the laws do nothing by themselves to modify people's behavior unless those people were already interested in following them (in which case their behavior would abide by the laws even if they didn't exist), what we need are people who go around imposing consequences on other people with the given reason that their behavior had broken the laws.

People who do not believe in laws still follow them as if they were real because of the risk of very real consequences from breaking them, and these consequences come not from the laws themselves, but from the enforcers. The enforcers and their enforcement are what matter here: you can follow the laws and be punished, or break the laws and see no punishment for doing it. It all depends on whether the enforcers are able and willing to punish you (whether or not you did anything that they are punishing your for is irrelevant).