Would the world be a better place if there were less Statists?

1. 68

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      People were the biggest cause of unnatural death.  Eliminate government and  people would find another justification for killing.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really? Who funds an army to kill brown people if it isn't stolen from the populace?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 68

                           innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              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.

                              replyreport
      2. 68

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
2. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   Historically. the first step taken by a government before committing atrocities against its people is the disarming of the population.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I fully support the right of citizens to bear arms for this very reason.

      replyreport