Governments Kill More People Than Wars

Post Reply New Topic

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue ... nments.htm

"Governments Kill More People Than Wars"

A government is a group of people, which a lot of people trust, because they say a lot of stuff.

But a war is not a group of people. It's about people disagreeing with each other then getting together and then fighting with each other, because they think that's a good solution to their problems.


The title was interesting.

I think what the original poster meant is that more people have been killed by the actions of the government than those killed in war (which is an action of a government in and of itself).

The last few years have made me cynical about both government and war. Since modern war is almost always waged by government, we conclude: "acts of government are the most frequent way humans intentionally kill humans."

However, it does not take an act of war for a government to kill humans (witness the Branch Davidians).

I was thinking that the original poster means more people have been killed by governments through non-war action or inaction than through war.

On Sept 11, 2001 approximately 3500 people were killed by terrorists. The USA war machine has been grinding away ever since. It's probably a safe bet that the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in at least 500,000 deaths.

That sounds like a lot...

Until you consider the fact that human genocide in Africa has been largely ignored. Even without violent dictatorships, AIDS is killing approximately 8000 people (many of them children) EVERY SINGLE DAY in Africa. The USA could put an end to those deaths by providing drugs at cost (if not for free) but they refuse to do so because of fears that some of those drugs will find their way back into the USA and under-cut the highly profitable domestic market.

It's all about the money. 3500 deaths is a horrible disaster because it happened in the USA, but millions of deaths elsewhere are merely an inconvenient topic to be avoided.

Indirectly relates to the topic: On another forum I visit, I know someone with the signatuture "Guns don't kill people. I kill people.... With guns!"

Thats why I have to say that anyone who supports commuism is crazy. Supposedly Stalin killed twice the amount of people Hitler did (the aims and choices weren't quite as visceral though) and Mao Xetong (sp?) killed as many people as Hitler and Stalin combined, and this kind of stuff plus genocide has run rampant all over southeast Asia for a long time.

That's why anyone who supports government at all is suffering from the same insanity.

Government Kills

I don't see any difference btwn governement murder (genocide, civil war etc) and "formal war".

When did the spainish civil war cease to be a insurrection and a "police" action for other nations to participate in?

There is no difference because all of the action whether internal or external are the result of acts of government.

Well, the problem you run into is that there is no such thing as no government - anarchy just breads a power-grab which is given to either the most popular or the most ruthless. Supporting government and caring about it is the only way you can really choose between living under a dictator/despot or having your freedoms (I know you were probably joking but still, I see lots of so-called 'anarchists' in these forums).

In other words, you are saying that anarchy is no different than government. I do not accept that.

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is if you interpret anarchism as a chaotic condition.

I'm not an anarchist myself, but I sympathize with them. I'm more of a Minarchist, or Libertarian, which means I believe in small limited government. I think we need some government for military defense and law enforcement, but for little else. However, there are many who think even those things can be accomplished through things like Militias and neighborhood crime watches, and so forth.

Yinepuhotep, Are you a Libertarian? It seems that you are based on your posts. I also see you are in New Hampshire. Are you aware of the free state project?

I used to be a Libertarian. But the LP is too statist for my tastes, especially after having encountered the hard-core libertarianism of L. Neil Smith and Ernie Hancock. Now I consider myself to be more of an an-cap.

And, yes, I'm in New Hampshire because of the FSP. I moved here in January of 2004.