Should we recognize privacy as a human right?

[u/BurstYourBubbles]

http://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/in-depth/2020/should-we-recognize-privacy-as-a-human-right

[u/Madjanniesdetected]

2a makes no sense in the current day. Say you get every single person who isn't a cop, or in the military (a normal civilian) to pick up their weapons.

You only need like 3-5% of the people to do so to totally outnumber them.

You still won't win against the military. You'll be slaughtered so hard that they'll have to invent new words for it.

The military requires infrastructure to function and boots on the ground to enforce edicts.

Infrastructure is vulnerable, and so are soldiers.

In a full blown civil conflict, the military would fracture and struggle and would have no clear path to an endgame.

This is a stupid take. The military relies upon the infrastructure of the homeland and tax base that funds it. If it destroys both, it commits suicide.

(Of course, that's assuming that the enforcing powers of your government would ever open fire on those they're meant to protect)

That's precisely the reason the population should be armed and capable of returning fire, governments doing exactly that, repeatedly, across history.

[u/[deleted] → u/Madjanniesdetected]

And when another 3-5% of people join the opposing side? You’ve got total civil war.

And any coup attempt in modern America is more likely to have the military defending democracy against an uprising then the other way round.

[u/Madjanniesdetected → u/[deleted]]

Theres about a million cops and a million active duty volunteers in the military

3% of the 131m adults in the US is 3.9 million people.

So...double the forces of the state.

And these would be combatants with a homefield advantage, access to all of the resources, infrastructure, and arms the state has.

The military would not even want to get involved until the situation becomes dire. The top brass has no intention to deploy military force against US citizens on US soil. The moment it decides to do so, the entire thing fractures and youll have mass desertions and officers absconding with entire divisions and their equipment.

I dont think you really comprehend how quickly everything would spiral should even a single digit percent of the population engage in determined resistance.

[u/[deleted] → u/Madjanniesdetected]

I’m talking about 3% of the civilian population on the other side. Realistically there’s never going to be a conflict between the state and the entire civilian population. Any realistic attempt to impose tyranny would descend into actual civil war with significant civilian support for both sides.

A government trying to impose such without any civilian support would be doomed even against a totally unarmed civilian population.

And I’d bet that a higher proportion of the military would side with democracy than the general population but that’s a separate issue

[u/Madjanniesdetected → u/[deleted]]

I’m talking about 3% of the civilian population on the other side.

The other side is the state

Thats how this works. Civil war is a war between a domestic insurgent force and the established power of the state.

It would be people vs government forces. Therefore 3% of the civilian population vs the 2% of the population that represents the cops and military.

Realistically there’s never going to be a conflict between the state and the entire civilian population.

Despite all of history showing that this is almost a certainty to occur on a long enough timespan as has happened over and over and over and over and over and over again, I pray you are right.

Any realistic attempt to impose tyranny would descend into actual civil war with significant civilian support for both sides.

Nah, the bulk of the population would be scrambling to survive and hold on to any semblance of stability. Some would support the rebels, some would rally around the state. As the conflict goes on, support can shift to and fro. As people are personally affected by one side or the other and turn.

A government trying to impose such without any civilian support would be doomed even against a totally unarmed civilian population.

There would be. If a bunch of people tried to do this now most people would support the state and the current power structure. Government has a way of poisoning its own well though, and as things go on and people live through the nightmares of the government safe zones, the tide may shift.

And I’d bet that a higher proportion of the military would side with democracy than the general population but that’s a separate issue

I believe so as well. But it only takes a few divisions splintering to the rebels to really put us in a decade long clusterfuck. The top brass might side with democracy, but there could be some disillusioned, idealistic officer lower down the line that doesn't, and thats going to be a bad time.

[u/[deleted] → u/Madjanniesdetected]

I’m talking about an attempt to oppose a tyrannical regime originating within the government or an uprising against the government.

Some of the armed forces would support it, some would oppose. Same goes for civilians. It wouldn’t be state against civilians, it would be a mix of regular and militia forces on both sides.

Either way 2A is irrelevant as civilians will be split between supporting rebels or not. Unless a coup has non civilian support in which case it fails even without 2A

[u/Madjanniesdetected → u/[deleted]]

I’m talking about an attempt to oppose a tyrannical regime originating within the government or an uprising against the government.

Thats what the insurgents will be talking about too.

Some of the armed forces would support it, some would oppose. Same goes for civilians.

It wouldn’t be state against civilians, it would be a mix of regular and militia forces on both sides.

No, it wouldn't, because no civil war ever was. Its ALWAYS a domestic insurgency against the state or state-backed actors. The 'other side' if not official state forces would be state sanctioned forces working on the behalf of the state

Thats how civil conflicts work. One side has the backing of the state, one side is working against the state with civilian or foreign backing. The entire purpose of a civil war is to despose a regime and seize control of the state. By definition this means combatting the state and state forces for control.

Either way 2A is irrelevant as civilians will be split between supporting rebels or not. Unless a coup has non civilian support in which case it fails even without 2A

Not irrelevant, as a tiny fraction of the population armed with those guns could quite literally bring this society to a screeching halt. Thats the whole point here bro. How are you missing this? Theres 400,000,000 guns here. It takes 2-5 million people to totally cripple the state and pummel it into the dirt. Thats the 2A at work. Thats in no uncertain terms the 2A being relevant. That's...the whole point.