[gruez]

>That’s not their call to make. Inventors of technologies that could be used for war have never had the right to deny access to those technologies to the elected civilian government.[1]

>[1] The government can make you go over to southeast Asia and kill people personally.

Is this a normative statement? In other words are you simply claiming "the government has men with guns and therefore can force people/companies do whatever they want", or are you claiming that "the government should be able to commandeer civilian resources for whatever it wants"?

[rayiner]

It’s a descriptive statement about the law. But you’re mischaracterizing the normative principle underlying the law. It’s not based on power, but rather the moral duties incumbent on citizens.

[gruez]

>but rather the moral duties incumbent on citizens.

Is it a "moral duty" to aid your government, especially in the current social/political environment? Conscription is theoretically still allowed in the US, and you're theoretically supposed to register for the SSS, but nobody has been prosecuted for failure to do so in decades. That suggests the "moral duty" aspect has significantly weakened. Moreover if we're making comparisons to the draft, it's also worth noting the draft allows for conscientious objection. That makes your claim of "that’s not their call to make" quite questionable.

[praptak]

The moral duty of a citizen is to sabotage their country when it becomes immoral.

[croon]

Not one person in the current administration or its party (or yourself) would agree with you a few years ago in regards to the administration having communications with Twitter/Meta over a laptop story, regardless if any strongarming even took place at all.

[catlover76]

> It’s not based on power, but rather the moral duties incumbent on citizens.

People largely tend not to believe in this kind of jingoistic bullshit nowadays.