Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: death-wish.jpg (57KB, 650x366px) Image search:
[Google]
57KB, 650x366px
A question /pol/. Now that it is obvious that most European nations are either on the brink or in the process of the collapse of the social contract between citizens and state because of mass (muslim) immigration, what are the limits of self and national defence?
If the state is not carrying out its first duty, to defend the population, and is instead causing the population harm by supporting and assisting rape-fugees, muslim rape gangs (Britain), muslim hate preachers, and muslim terrorists, the population is entitled to defend itself. That is natural justice.
But what are the limits?
It does not appear to be okay for some guy in Wales to hire a van and then go run over some muslims in London.
But would it be fair game for the people of Rotherham to lynch all the muslim rape gang members that the police have been helping by deliberately turning a blind eye?
Would it be fair game for the people of Manchester to lynch the hate preachers in the local mosques?
Would it be fair game to throw petrol bombs at muslims carrying the black flag of ISIS in London? Or muslims carrying the Hezbollah flag in London?
Where's the line between reasonable defence of the self and nation and being a bonkers Breivik /pol?
>>
I think most are too wary of NES ayylmao $pies to honestly talk about this.
>>
>>131771862
It is a political philosophy discussion.
The paramaters of self defence when John Locke wrote his Two Treatises on Government were pretty harsh.
His idea of self defence included killing someone who steals from you. That was fair game in his time.
But how and where do we draw the line now?
How is it that we know that hiring a van in Wales to go run over some muslims in London is not reasonable? How do we know what is reasonable?
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1