I wish it was that simple. I don't think they're all to "pro...

ChipTuner

npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7

hex

7942db230f47ed625ad25eded91a04da94f32df43c6b30c1daf37ac8a0c0a656

nevent

nevent1qqs8jskmyv850mtzttf9ahkergzd498n9h6rc6esc8d0x7kg5rq2v4sprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsqxefne258ydmfgm2wfl02fsdqgs0d5wx29kweg9amxcqxew4t7kqv7rukg

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-21T16:59:08Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

b3e5bbca51faf2462c5aa7609a2c4c88e9cdc6b01b6893c40e735b62f02a36fe...

I wish it was that simple. I don't think they're all to "protect yourself". In the use sometimes domestic laws, like for dangerous gun owners, for example would allow the police to enter a home and seize a persons guns. Sometimes used if you're considered a danger to yourself as well. Maybe not the best example, but that's the nuance.

So long as the state exists, and the state write laws that are broadly enforced - If you're asking, there is a guarantee that the only person Im harming is myself, then broadly speaking, no. I oppose any law that is meant to "protect me from myself" because it's often enforced with more force and violence.

If I don't stop smoking and I resist, am I criminal? Will I be starting down the barrel of a gun? Probably. Then the answer is no, smoking is a far less violent act then the state enforcing these types of laws. The problem always becomes the dissidents in this case. How many sitting in prisons, homes raided, or victims of state violence because they disagree?

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "7942db230f47ed625ad25eded91a04da94f32df43c6b30c1daf37ac8a0c0a656",
  "pubkey": "036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58",
  "created_at": 1776790748,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "c9f0f92b6f17bc27ce62ba5ea4ec6108d0e717e0fc78d5271ec67ec1514448c8",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/",
      "root",
      "e83b66a8ed2d37c07d1abea6e1b000a15549c69508fa4c5875556d52b0526c2b"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "b3e5bbca51faf2462c5aa7609a2c4c88e9cdc6b01b6893c40e735b62f02a36fe",
      "nostr-idb://cache-relay",
      "reply",
      "e83b66a8ed2d37c07d1abea6e1b000a15549c69508fa4c5875556d52b0526c2b"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "e83b66a8ed2d37c07d1abea6e1b000a15549c69508fa4c5875556d52b0526c2b"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I wish it was that simple. I don't think they're all to \"protect yourself\". In the use sometimes domestic laws, like for dangerous gun owners, for example would allow the police to enter a home and seize a persons guns. Sometimes used if you're considered a danger to yourself as well. Maybe not the best example, but that's the nuance. \n\nSo long as the state exists, and the state write laws that are broadly enforced - If you're asking, there is a guarantee that the only person Im harming is myself, then broadly speaking, no. I oppose any law that is meant to \"protect me from myself\" because it's often enforced with more force and violence. \n\nIf I don't stop smoking and I resist, am I criminal? Will I be starting down the barrel of a gun? Probably. Then the answer is no, smoking is a far less violent act then the state enforcing these types of laws. The problem always becomes the dissidents in this case. How many sitting in prisons, homes raided, or victims of state violence because they disagree? ",
  "sig": "56881b545b629906dc1016d88d01fe30fa589d99d53883b1421c665d4766b679f9fbb5ea16b14e685aeaa0e8e86f3cbbe1ce4049e066e22ec75cb8ff2dfdd89f"
}