Going back to the topic, whether literal or figurative, the point remains that the poor are not the ones with power. We cannot exert much force right now, particularly as individuals, and that’s what militant movements in the past have been about; militancy has always been about exerting force, not strictly (and indeed, rarely) in violent actions. Violence is just sometimes a long lever with which to exert force, and the state sanctioned expression of violence typically protect the rich more than the poor. But even in terms of other forms of force, we see that the rich have the control, or at least disproportionate control. The poor have been duped into increasing dependence, either on the rich or the government.
Force, we don’t got.
@ETpro Whenever anyone really wants to loot the land, the first thing they try to buy control of is the government. They have guns and ammo simply unavailable to the general public
Exactly. I’m in the school of thought that defines the role of governments as legitimizing and facilitating resource extract, primarily by maintaining a monopoly on violence. No wonder I don’t like them. It thus figures to reason that the rich themselves, that is, those at the center of resource extraction (even abstract resources like money) would either influence or set up governments for that purpose.
@jerv I am fairly certain that after this post, I am on some sort of watchlist, so maybe they will track everybody who knows how to work metal and/or has even a basic working knowledge of firearms.
Welcome to the club. We have all the fun toys. :P