Government was the biggest cause of unnatural death in the 20th Century . . . and it is supposed to keep us safe?
We live in a world where violence is moral, lies are just and evil is fair; so carry on watching Jersey Shore by all means, keep taking those drugs and don't question the government.
People were the biggest cause of unnatural death. Eliminate government and people would find another justification for killing.
Really? Who funds an army to kill brown people if it isn't stolen from the populace?
Oh, come on. If a despot wants an army, he'll find a way to get one, whether volunteer or forced. Governments aren't the only entities that steal from the populace.
Government is the only institution that legalises theft, and then justifies it by calling it a 'duty', and offers the illusion of protection, so as to offer something back to an otherwise sceptical populace. If somebody wanted to steal from millions of people with an AK-47 I wager he would have a harder time of it, and it's hardly persuasive of the necessity of this particular war that you have to force people to do it. If neither side can scramble up a sizeable volunteer force then the war is probably not worth fighting in the first place.
And it is not only in war that government kills. It is through the destruction of economies, pillaging of resources, the death penalty and often plain old slaughter. All of these would at least be significantly diminished without the monopoly of force that is the state.
I'll say it again. Government is not the problem. People are the problem. If you eliminate government, you will still have the same old battles over power, ownership, and pride. Government is not perfect, but at least with a government there is a chance for organized good to overcome chaotic bad.
I know you will never believe that, so I won't continue to argue the point after this.
I know I'm not going to persuade you either, but I persist in the debate hopefully so those reading who might be on the fence can understand my position better. Debates aren't just for the participants! So if you wish to continue I would appreciate it if you addressed the points I made, I heard you correctly and responded to it, you don't need to repeat what you said before.
Actually, you did not respond to it. You ticked off another list of government evils, all of which are true so I won't argue with them. My point is that your list of evils will exist whether or not government exists. Sure, government can perpetrate evil on a grander scale. Government can also provide services that are wanted and needed by its citizens on a grander scale.
The point I made was that it is more difficult to steal from the populace without the illusion of 'duty' and 'democracy' so wars and massacres would be significantly reduced, not eliminated. I'm not suggesting violence will be solved with the absence of the state.
I also take issue with the position that government can provide services on a grand scale. Ironically, even McDonalds has done more to solve world hunger than any government that has ever existed. In order to provide anything on a large scale you need to take money away from already productive sources. I say get the government out of the way so we can do that properly.
I disagree that wars and massacres would be significantly reduced if there were no governments. Do you have any evidence at all to support this idea, because if it exists I've never seen it.
World hunger is a completely different problem and you are right, it has not been solved by government. However, that doesn't really apply to your original premise, does it? A government is formed to provided services to its own citizens, not the world.
If you are arguing that it is in the species' nature to kill, you're going to have to explain why you are not going around killing people.
Historically. the first step taken by a government before committing atrocities against its people is the disarming of the population.
by Chasuk4 years ago
But more Buddhists?
by Barefootfae4 years ago
This seems to be an issue. There is a forum beating Christians over the head so I decided why not be fair?
by Claire Evans2 years ago
I've heard that atheists claim that the point of their existence is to leave the world in a better place. As we know, the world is never a better place. Why struggle through life, learn to love and then die?...
by Silent Assassin8 years ago
We all live in a world where the bad things seem to be more big news than the good things.As a collective, what do you think humans could do to realistically make the attitudes & the actions of people change for the...
by Emile R4 years ago
I figured the question was coming, so I decided to be pro active. I like agnostics. I see them as open minded individuals with an insatiable curiosity; unwilling to settle for half an answer.Others see us as namby pamby...
by Felixedet20005 years ago
Religion,politics,Sports are the three biggest causes of violence in the world:Do you think the world will become a better place for all if this three factors were to be factored out completely?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.