Not in the sense that they are themselves brutal thugs (though that too sometimes), but in the sense that they view violence as the only measure of power. Unless there is a man with a gun or a whip behind you, it is assumed that he cannot exercise power over you. And if no power is being exercised over you, your behaviour is assumed to be fully voluntary and completely your own to decide.
In other words, they skipped over all major advances in the social sciences for the last hundred years or so.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
And the problem is usually the libruls who are too wussy to apply force at every opportunity to get their way. Obama's predilection for bipartisanship, consensus and compromise will elicit nothing but contempt from them. It shows them he's weak and not a man of power. It's almost a sexual thing - dominance and submission - which can also be found in fanatical religious organisations.
This carrying a gun is a psychological statement and requirement to demonstrates their power and dominance over others. It demonstrates a contempt for the arts of persuasion and negotiation - something they are usually terrible at. To me it all smacks of extreme emotional immaturity that I associate with repressive societies and sexual norms, male dominance, and reverence for AUTHORITY.
Maybe I should read The mass psychology of fascism... Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
This leads them to the naive assumption that there is no power in private relationships, since the government holds the monopoly on the exercise of organised violence. Since there can be no power in private relationships, there can be no asymmetries of power, and thus there can be no oppression. Therefore, smaller government means less oppression, meaning more freedom.
