What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture?
Arbitrarily drawing the line at your feet for what form of group is acceptable doesn’t change that your self-defense militia would in fact be akin to “a state” in the context of what is being discussed.
There’s a big difference between inviting someone into your home and someone entering uninvited. There’s also a big difference between inviting one person into your home versus ten people.
I don’t know enough about these situations to comment on them. In isolation, a non-zero amount of suffering and death is obviously worse than none. But the world isn’t an isolated bubble like that. When you consider everything in its totality, it’s no longer so obvious what the correct objective should be, and that’s with the assumption that we can even even devise a measurable score for any of these objectives. Do we care for a lower bound on everyone’s quality of life? Do we want to maximize some quality of life average or total? Do we want to maximize the duration of human existence? Who is this “everyone”? Everyone alive today? Everyone who will ever exist? Do we give the same weight to every person? Or should we use some discounted weighting so that present humans get higher priority than future humans? Or should we put a cap on how much of our collective resources we can allocate to any given individual?
What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture?
That still doesn’t mean that I’d be ready to die for another state.
So you prefer to roll over and get genocided?
Not what I said.
I’d flee or if there’s any reasonable chance to survive, I’d join some self-defense militia. But I wouldn’t die for a state.
Arbitrarily drawing the line at your feet for what form of group is acceptable doesn’t change that your self-defense militia would in fact be akin to “a state” in the context of what is being discussed.
it were a state, I wouldn’t have a say in whether or not I will help in defending that state.
There are enough states with voluntary recruitment?
How long do you think that remains voluntary once a state of emergency is called out due to war?
So if your land gets taken over, you’ll go somewhere else and take someone else’s land?
Is that hou you view refugees? As “taking someone else’s land”?
Ok, Mr Musk. /s
There’s a big difference between inviting someone into your home and someone entering uninvited. There’s also a big difference between inviting one person into your home versus ten people.
Ok. I’ll better not ask you about your opinion on the “refugee crisis” of 2015 or what you think about refugees drowning in the mediterranean sea.
You’re probably also in favour of male Ukranian refugees between 18 and 60 in losing their residence permit in Germany in 2028.
I don’t know enough about these situations to comment on them. In isolation, a non-zero amount of suffering and death is obviously worse than none. But the world isn’t an isolated bubble like that. When you consider everything in its totality, it’s no longer so obvious what the correct objective should be, and that’s with the assumption that we can even even devise a measurable score for any of these objectives. Do we care for a lower bound on everyone’s quality of life? Do we want to maximize some quality of life average or total? Do we want to maximize the duration of human existence? Who is this “everyone”? Everyone alive today? Everyone who will ever exist? Do we give the same weight to every person? Or should we use some discounted weighting so that present humans get higher priority than future humans? Or should we put a cap on how much of our collective resources we can allocate to any given individual?