Governments Kill More People Than Wars

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I believe in small government too - I'm by and large a republican and that's what we're all about as well. However I don't understand how the idea of minimal government and anarchy even border - to have the least ammount of government that government has to run ultra-lean and ultra-efficient. It takes hardcore economic and legal minds years and years of trying to automate out the pitfalls of human nature via elaborate internal controls to make a properly functioning government like that.
However, minimal government takes an extremely disciplined society; something that conservatives seem all about but many people on the other side - better not preach to em about values.

If anarchists were self-discipline freaks who were the ultimate altruists and said 'you know, I don't need government to do anything for me - I'll do it all myself' and really were that hardcore that you knew they'd be completely law abiding and hardcore about values and education without a system to govern them; I guess then in theory anarchy could work. How many people do you know like that though?

Why would anarchists be law abiding, when laws are, by their very essence, the initiation of force against innocent people?

The truth is, every anarchist I know personally is an anarchist because we believe that it is impossible to believe that the initiation of force is evil, and at the same time believe that government is anything but evil.

Government is, by its very nature, the initiation of force against the innocent. Thus, it is corrupting, it attracts those who are corruptible and further corrupts them, and it produces harm even when it appears to be doing good.

Government can not do anything by itself. Every "good" that government does, it does by stealing from those who actually produced the good, and distributing it to those who did not produce it. Even government "defense" and "law enforcement" are done by initiating force against the innocent, whether it is by creating laws against things that are not inherently evil (such as owning or using certain objects without harming others) or by stealing from those it supposedly "protects" in order to "protect" them (exactly the same way a Mafia boss does when he "protects" those in his territory).

Anarchists are against government because we know that, no matter how much evil an individual is capable of, it is nothing compared to the evil that even the most minimal government is capable of. If you do not trust an individual to run his own life, how can you trust him to run others' lives just because he happens to be wearing the big hat of government?

In my own humble opinion, that force will be there no matter what. Just like that comment I made about anarchy being impossible since its a power vacuum which, by human nature and ambition will never be unfilled for longer than a few weeks, days, or even minutes - as long as you live arround other people there will always be rules enforced upon you; with government participation you have a say in how fair those rules are rather than with a dictatorship or despot where the rules may be very cruel, even immoral, and where you've pretty much got a gun in your mouth your whole life. If it wasn't an organized government and wether democracy, republic, socialist, dictatorship, or communist, then it would be feudal warlords.

As things stand right now, if all the laws were let go of today then might would truely make right. All the prison inmates would be running free, they would be running everything, and all the innocent or peaceloving people out there would be living the lives of blow-up dolls. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like my kind of world, especially having a disability where when the worst of human nature prevails we're among the first on the list for victimhood.

What do you mean by "values"? Do you mean christian values? The values of every individual varies, and if we have a truly free society then it is necessary that every individual be free to live by his own values, and not have the government impose its values upon them. The only exception to that is, when someone's values violate the rights of others. That's where I, as a Minarchist, believe government comes in. I believe government's sole purpose is to protect individuals against force and fraud.

Do you as a Republican support what the GOP is doing with it's draconian drug war against nonviolent offenders, or it's illegal and immoral war against other countries? It is for those reasons, and many others, that I am a Libertarian and not a Republican. Republicans claim to stand for smaller government, except when it comes to things like locking nonviolent offenders up, or pushing small countries around... Not to mention that Bush is spending money worse than Bill Clinton ever did.

I understand your feelings, but I do hope you will at least support the LP as a means to get closer to anarchism. There currently is no Anarcho-Capitalist party (that I know of), and such a party would probably be very unpopular. The LP, however, is the largest third party so they offer the best hope of getting us out of the police state we currently live under.

Are you familiar with Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate in 96 and 2000? He is alot more to my liking than other so called Libertarians like Neil Boortz and so forth. He has a radio program and he often says how once we get government down to a minimal level, new possibilities may present themselves to get government ever smaller until finally we can do away with government entirely. But currently we are so far away from that point that reducing government should be our immediate concern and the LP is the best party for that.

No, I don't think Christian values in specifically. I think though that the one merit Christianity and other major religions really have is they seem like the only way *most* people will feel enough motivation to be pushed to work hard and do the right thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete theory X thinker, just that there are enough people which theory x thinking is true for that having Christian values and being told to believe they will go to hell if they don't is the only thing that'll work - tell em it isn't the case they'll be like "Oh, great. I don't have to do a damn thing for anyone".




The war on drugs I think is something we should be more leanient on on one or two angles - marijuana is a lot less harmful than alcohol, it doesn't cause violence in nearly as many people, it just happened to be legislated against for racial reasons in the south, banned later, whereas alcohol is just the grandfather drug - everyone does it. IMO it would be great to see marijuana legalized (and for all those people who think it causes schizophrenia the studies have it backwards - schizophrenics smoke it because its a natural neuroleptic/antipsychotic, weed didn't cause their schizophrenia), also in part they may be able to, in limited ways, legalize some of the other non-amphetamine type things. For instance they could research mushrooms and find out if there is a type of mushroom that has the right chemical balance to where te risk of bad trips is real low, ketamine is one of those things also I think where if they regulated the heck out of what you could legally do while you were on it (ie. no driving, not out in public, you should been your couch at home) then that might be ok. However heroin, crystal meth, glass, pcp, crack, and even ecstacy - all of those have shown that they have too many meathooks to really be safe; its for those theory X people again as well as the people who have propensity toward addiction - if its legal for one person it has to be legal for all; that's just the set of confines that have been put on our system.

As for the 'immoral war' against other countries, I do support them because I see a completely different scenareo from the facts. I could try to explain it but then again usually explaining my side of the story till I"m blue in the face doesn't even seem to work. Most people have their set opinions on this and dont want more perspectives - me I test my theories all day long because I want to know if I'm wrong and actively look to see if there is a scenareo or way of looking at the current situation in Iraq/Afghanistan that makes more sense than the picture I've drawn.

Ah yes...Harry Browne. One of the reasons I am an EX-Libertarian. I thought the way you are arguing....even to the point of supporting Mike Badnarik in the last election...despite having learned of the corruption of the LP, and how the Browne/Cloud gang turned it into just another variety of Republican Party, for the sake of lining the Browne/Cloud gang's pockets.

Until the LP stops trying to be Republican Lite, it's not nearly the friend of freedom it claims to be. I'll work with it when it supports freedom, but at the same time, when it opposes freedom, I'll oppose it.

Stalin warped the idea of Communism to fit his needs, as did others following him. THAT was not Communism.

I am of the mind to have a proper balance of Socialism in its most basic form and Capitalism in its most basic form. A balance is usually the best way to do things, imho.

All or nothing at all makes governments fall

No idealism for me, thank you very much. Governments need to be run on reality. Because mostly Idealistic = Unrealistic.



I'm not saying being cynical or heartless. But so much time is spent on the US government trying to convince its people that we are still a pure country. Such wasted time. Idealism can never be reached because humans are not at all ideal. Making more reachable goals is usually better. Then perhaps the ruddy media would have less "scandals" to uncover and maybe do some honest and untainted reporting for a change.

By the by, I am staunchly Democratic. Not because I am actually a Democrat, but simply because I disagree with just about everything that comes out of Republicans' mouths. Especially the Extreme Republicans, those who are ultra-conservative. Funny how many of them still insist that the Trickle-Down Theory works. I have a choice few profane words for that which I shall refrain from using simply because I've already brushed my teeth for the night.

Can you explain to me what you mean by lining their pockets? I am not aware of this corruption that you speak of.

And unfortunately the LP, as bad as it might be, seems to be our best hope for reducing the size of the government. Republicans won't do it and Democrats won't and no other third party seems in as good of a position as the LP. So it would be pretty sad to think that the LP is as bad as you say it is...

The story as it was reported in Liberty Magazine.

Thanks. Seems like I heard about this before.

Hmmm...balance socialism and capitalism....Ah! Mercantilism! In other words, the economic system the United States CURRENTLY has.

Socialism and capitalism are as intrinsically opposed as matter and anti-matter. Any attempt to blend them will, by its very nature, produce one form of disaster or another.

Capitalism, in its purest form, is the notion that human beings are individuals and each has total ownership of himself and the produce of his efforts.

Socialism, in its purest form, is the notion that human beings are not individuals, but are rather interchangeable, disposable resource units which society can use as it wills.

Thus, under socialism you have no rights. All you have are those privileges that society allows you to play with, and you have those privileges only until society decides you are no longer allowed to have them.

Meanwhile, under capitalism, you have the right to do anything you damned well please, as long as you do not infringe upon the self-ownership of another individual.

There have been four societies within the last 200 years that have approached the socialistic ideal: The French Republic, National Socialist Germany, Stalin's USSR, and China under the Cultural Revolution.

Perhaps using the terms Capitalism and Socialism was a bit careless of me. I look at them not necessarily in a political arena. I would call them "acting for the profit of oneself over others" and "acting for the profit of others over oneself". This is the balance to which I refer. The balance, more or less, which every person acts upon. I simply feel MORE balance in government systems would be prudent, if it is even possible that is.

I tend to look at humans as we are animals, creatures, that's all. And politics is simply an over-extension of simple sociological systems. I believe "politics" is a fictional term which merely fits at the pinnacle of animal interaction thus far.

All rational beings act for their own profit first. If you do not profit yourself first, you have nothing to offer others.

This is why every workable system of ethics starts with the self, from the Jewish and Christian command to love one's neighbor as one loves one's self, to anarcho-libertarian zero aggression principle.

Even "altruism" is based on self-interest: you do good for others because it is a positive benefit to yourself, even if the only positive benefit is that you feel better about your own place in the universe.

Government for sure kills people. People do the killing, not the guns.

Yup. And from what the professor I linked to earlier discovered, the more government, the more killing.