Three quick arguments against socialism, and a bit about anarchism

1. 67

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   This is the alternative thread to Sooner's arguments against capitalism. Not just to be facetious, but to get it on record
   
   1 - It is inherently aggressive. It prohibits voluntary exchange and free enterprise, and steals property.
   
   2 - It is impossible (and NOT because greed mucks it up). All prices, not just consumer goods, can only be ascertained through voluntary exchange. The economic planner has insufficient knowledge to be able to ascertain the demand of a resource as consumers and entrepreneurs cannot voluntarily exchange for them. In other words: how do you indicate your wants and needs if everything is decided for you?
   
   See Mises's article "Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth" for more details, summarised here:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqUqdbfxhk
   
   3 - It encourages totalitarianism. Since socialism is impossible, things are going to go wrong, and at this point it becomes all the easier to suggest that control measures did not go far enough. An argument for the aggressive intervention into one voluntary action is an argument for all.
   
   Since Sooner seems to be closer to an Anarcho-Socialist than a statist, perhaps only argument 2 applies to him.
   
   BONUS - Can I convert you to an anarchist with one statistic?
   Democide (death by government) in the 20th Century caused 262,000,000 deaths. Yes, 262 million people, and this is not including deaths from conflicts that are the fault of governments too. That's 20 times more deaths than was caused by HIV. Since the whole world is hellbent on eradicating HIV, it seems weird to me that we don't even question government.
   
   Maybe the burden of proof lies upon the statist to prove that their system 'works'.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Just to deal with the bonus.
      
      Any thought on it will prove it meaningless. Yes governments go to war with each other. Yes governments are sometimes oppressive and murderous. But here is the reality of what happened before.
      
      Before we had states we had tribes, before tribes family groups, those went to war with each other except instead of millions of constant wars we now have a much smaller number of higher intensity wars. Indeed if you look at the history of warfare you will see war is becoming ever rarer.
      
      Of course states have also made security, criminal punishment, police etc. possible all of which have contributed to the massive increase in life expectancy. 
      
      Were things better when we had no states? No they were woeful comparatively, constant tribal warfare, institutionalized rape, kingdoms rising and falling by sheer force of arms, weaker states being conquered and enslaved by their stronger neighbors, no security, no constant legal system, no regular police etc.
      
      Any study of life before nation states makes a mockery of the claim it is better.
      
      The "statist" already proved his system better about 5000 years ago. It was so much better that all the non statist systems disappeared. Better systems replace inferior ones by out competing them.
      
      But please demonstrate example of these amazing non statist systems, of their great cultural achievements, scientific progress, monuments and writings.... Yeah I thought not.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Humankind is not evolved enough to live without government as we presently know it.  We still exist more or less at a tribal awareness and consciouness level.  We need laws and by laws to ensure that the populace is well behaved and conscious towards others, pure and simple.  To even conceive that humankind does not need government interference is pure myopic, utopian fantasy or rather delusion to say the least.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            +1
            Unfortunately. I wish it were not the case, it would be amazing if we could and I think it is the true utopia but as you say we are not ready or able.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Anarchism is not the lack of rules but the lack of rulers.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I KNOW but humankind is this stage are not evolved enough to practice self-government on a minor scale. We still exist at a somewhat primitive level of tribal awareness and consciousness.  Many people need governmental checks and balances as they do not have the moral wherewithal to consider the common and ultimate good but exist within a survivalist and predatory level. Humankind has to reach a high level of humanistic and universal awareness and consciousness in order to effectively practice self-government either on a minor or major scale.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you arguing that politicians have rid themselves of primitivism and are at a higher awareness and consciousness than the average human being?

                  replyreport
         3. 56

            Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            It's equally myopic to believe that additional regulation, with inefficient government oversight, is preferential to less regulation.  Most capitalists don't want a total negation of laws.  Most capitalists agree that laws are necessary.  We simply want less regulation, less taxation, less penalization for being successful; we want the government to get out of the way of our success, to allow us to succeed.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               This discussion is not going to work like this. The above poster is arguing from an anarcho capitalist perspective. The arguments used against that viewpoint are significantly different to those used against a conservative viewpoint like your own. If you are going to respond to criticisms of his suggested system with rebuttals from your own then this will be a jumbled nonsensical mess.

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Josak,
                  
                  In this instance, you're probably right.  I'll sit back and enjoy watching. 
                  
                  Best wishes.

                  replyreport
      2. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Josak, statistically, the 20th century was the bloodiest period of human history. There is just no comparing the relatively petty tribal warfare of early civilisation with the systematic destruction of peoples by the modern state. Just going by number of deaths, we're on average better off without nation states.
         
         Think about that figure: 262 million. Even if we don't convert to anarchism, we have to at least think that maybe we need to do things maybe just a little differently?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Not by percentage of population it wasn't I am happy to do a comparison with you, The Roman conquest of Gaul killed or enslaved almost two third of the Gaulish population, Genghis Khan killed half the population of China etc. etc.
            
            Indeed you can't compare millions of wars against the current what 6? We are better at killing people now no doubt, it's a lot easier to kill more people with modern weaponry than bow and arrow but in truth we still are not even close to what they were able to accomplish
            
            Even within this century we have seen a rapid decrease in warfare, from the massive world wars early to comparative peace in the modern era. In the 80s there was a period where there was not a single war being fought on the whole planet. That has never been true in recorded history!
            
            Of course we can do better, I support the steady disarmament of the planet and the strengthening of the international community. I especially support democratic republics which you so despise. Two democratic republics have never gone to war with each other.
            
            In the socialist view it is not governance responsible for such atrocities of course but jingoism, the separation of mankind based on the imaginary lines between which he is born rather than being embraced as brother for his humanity and the key is strengthening human ties and diplomatic ties.
            
            That system has worked, yours was a complete failure. In 1900 if you had told a Frenchman or a German that today they would be part of a vast economic and military alliance with shared open borders and economic aid not by conquest but by diplomacy he would have laughed in your face. And yet today so it is.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      We live in the most peaceful period in human existence.
      
      Sure there are still a few minor wars being fought, The US is still in Afghanistan for example and I think that is terrible but it must be said that even so that is a form of warfare nowhere near as terrible as warfare in centuries past, the losing nation will not be enslaved, absorbed, destroyed or racially purified.
      
      In most of the world there is peace the likes of which have never been seen in human history. States have continued to expand and yet war is becoming rarer and rarer.
      
      Most of the repressive regimes have collapsed, monarchy and dictatorship are rapidly going extinct as are nations that murder their own citizens, hell even the death penalty for convicted criminals is going extinct! The current system is working, it's doing exactly what non state systems failed to do, moving steadily towards peace and away from oppression.
      
      Anarchist entities (as plenty of Greek historians who experienced it will tell you) were just a violent struggle until the next dictator seized power by force. As I said your claims were laughed out of political relevance and dismissed as false thousands of years ago by people who experienced it.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What you are citing in evidence, including Genghis Khan, Greece and Rome, are 'monopolies of force', which is what the state is. These are hardly anarchist societies. All of them claimed the absolute right of violence over a certain land mass. So what you are saying is that governments have always been aggressive - so we agree.
         
         Let's jump ahead to modern times and talk about your claim that we have had less war than before:
         
         
         We are in agreement that "Deaths as a share of world-population" is the most
         appropriate statistic for this debate, so we can see that what you claim is demonstrably false. 4.35% of the world population died from conflict in the 20th century, which is as much as the previous four centuries combined. We may have had a period in which there was no war, but I would much rather have 100 wars where only a few people died (if we grant you the notion that anarchism will produce feudalism/gang-warfare/warlord-ism) than 1 war where millions died.
         
         I think only the era of Genghis Khan exceeds the 20th century - but he presided over a fascist state, so I don't see how this refutes my point.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think I can deny the aggressive aspect of state capitalism/socialism. 
      
      Though, capitalists do agrgess against my body when they pollute the air I breath and the water I drink. 
      
      The planning though, isn't impossible.  The epistemological objection you bring up (at least the way I understand it) is that economic planners do not have the capacity to foresee into the future what people need and want in any long-term and consistent way, so shortages and inefficiencies are certain to result!
      
      To me, it's basically a numbers game.  If you have 500 people in a society, and you take the typical health recommendations from nutritionists and doctors, everyone could eat and have a little extra with just a little planning.  Let's say hypothetically all 500 need 1,200 calories a day.  Just grow enough food that the 500 can get the 1,200 calories they need, kind of like a family plans for the week or month (depending on how often you shop).
      
      You may object that the motivation is lacking for people to grow food, but the objection I'm focusing on here is just planning itself.    There would of course be rationing, because people could not have ANYTHING they wanted (such as 20 houses).
      
      But like you said, I'm closer to anarchism on the state.  But any society would need to plan and organize, no matter how egalitarian (though organization is not rigid hierarchy). 
      
      The third point is an interesting one.  Let's assume I grant that socialism is impossible in practice.  Does it then follow that totalitarianism is going to result?
      
      I don't see why that necessarily follows.  One could just have a sort of sucky society that kind of truds along, though this assumes your definition of impossible is "fails to meet the ideal."
      
      However, if you are arguing that socialism is so impossible that it just produces madness, it probably would follow that totalitarian measures will end up resulting (since the powers that be won't want to give up their power).

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Of course pollution is aggression, so I don't have any problem with laws against it. Insurance companies can also deal with the problem, but that's a discussion for another time I think.
         
         OK, first of all, we don't all need exactly 1,200 calories a day. Obviously, some people need more, and some less. Are you going to have a department to make sure every single person is getting the right amount for their bodies? Second, we all have different tastes - some people have allergies, some people are vegetarians and some people just don't like cucumber (I think I'd revolt on that alone). This is another thing you're going to have to take into consideration if you want to keep people happy.
         
         You're going to have to source all of it, find the best place to grow it whilst being in proximity to those who need it, find a balance between a good but economical fertiliser. How how are you going to get the vehicles and man power to ship it?
         
         No one person or group of people has all of the knowledge to perform this task.
         
         On the contrary, considering how inefficient this system will be, I think there definitely will be a motivation to grow your own food
         
         One of Milton Friedman's best contributions to economics was his bit on the pencil: "No one knows how to make a pencil". It's true! No one person knows where the best place to mine the graphite is, the best way to transport it, the best people to hire to mine it - the same with the wood and the rubber and the machinery needed to manufacture it. The division of labour allows specialists to offer these services in a compartmentalised fashion, and by responding to the demand of the consumer, they know how much they need to make and how to make it.
         
         if you are arguing that socialism is so impossible that it just produces madness, it probably would follow that totalitarian measures will end up resulting (since the powers that be won't want to give up their power).
         
         Yes, that is roughly what I am arguing. The society that 'trudges along' is the mixed economy because there is usually enough economic growth from the market to sustain the parasitical state for a while - but the 'totalitarian tiptoe' dictates that it can't last forever. Statists gonna state, after all.

         replyreport
   4. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hello, Innersmiff.  Good to hear from you.
      
      I am a long way from being qualified to prove anything, much less to take on your challenge to defend statism. However, even I, as ill equipped as I am, can see that democide is not the best statistic to use to promote anarchy and to attack governance by structured national states.
      
      Of course, 262 million deaths in just 100 years are a significant and abhorrent tally. Upon close examination, however, this statistic is more an indictment of totalitarian governments while, at the same time, an accolade of hope and inspiration for democracy. Perhaps you should have looked more closely at your statistic.
      
      Those 262 million deaths you casually tossed like a gauntlet at the feet of all 200 or so organized governments in the world actually break down this way:
      
      1. About 80.1 million deaths (> 30%) occurred in China under Mao Soviets and in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), over a 64 year period ending in 1987. Of this number, nearly half (38 million) are attributed to Mao’s famine during the four year period from 1958 through 1962.
      2. Another 62.9 million deaths (24%) were counted in Russia and the USSR up until 1987. This includes about 8 million deaths resulting from the Soviet government's planned and administered starvation of the Ukraine begun in 1932 as a way of breaking peasant opposition to collectivization and destroying Ukrainian nationalism.
      
      So, Innersmiff, when discussing democide numbers, you must consider “from 1918 to 1953, the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed 39,500,000 of its own people. For China under Mao Tse-tung, the communist government eliminated, as an average figure between estimates, 45,000,000 Chinese. The number killed for just these two nations is about 84,500,000 human beings” in that very short time frame. {1}
      
      3.  Then, let us add 50 million due to colonial democide by various European colonizers and
      4. There were another 20.9 million deaths at the hands of the German government from 1933 through 1945
      
      When we put them all together, Innersmiff, we come up with 213.9 million or more than 81.6% of 262 million deaths during the 20th Century.
      
      With such overwhelming carnage coming from a miniscule sample of independent nation states, Innersmiff, I would take strong exception to your condemning all, or even most, organized governments of democide. I would also point out to you that less than 1.4 million deaths occurred during the last 13 years of the century. 
      
      As further testimony against your unjustified accusations, it should be noted that the greatest evils grew from the policies and agendas of totalitarian governments.
      
      Rudolph J. Rummel, Ph.D., observed from his research, “communist governments are overall almost four times more lethal to their citizens than non-communist ones, and in per capita terms nearly twice as lethal (even considering the huge populations of the USSR and China).”
      
      In addition, Dr. Rummel’s extensive research of 20th Century democide lead him to say, “In no case have I found a democratic government carrying out massacres, genocide, and mass executions of its own citizens; nor have I found a case where such a government's policies have knowingly and directly resulted in the large scale deaths of its people though privation, torture, beatings, and the like…
      
      “In light of all this, the peaceful, nonviolent, pursuit and fostering of civil liberties and political rights must be made mankind's highest humanitarian goal. Not simply to give the greatest number the greatest happiness, not simply to obey the moral imperative of individual rights, not simply to further the efficiency and productivity of a free society, but also and mainly because freedom preserves peace and life.” {2}
      
      Your stated challenge, “Can I convert you to an anarchist with one statistic?” That statistic, it turns out, is a weak and wanting argument. You will have to do a hellava lot better than this to prove statism is not a viable form of governance.
      
      {1} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
      {2} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTMYY

      replyreport
      1. 56

         bplusbobposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Wonderful post!!

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         "In addition, Dr. Rummel’s extensive research of 20th Century democide lead him to say, “In no case have I found a democratic government carrying out massacres, genocide, and mass executions of its own citizens; nor have I found a case where such a government's policies have knowingly and directly resulted in the large scale deaths of its people though privation, torture, beatings, and the like…"
         
         Not it's own citizens, but those of many other countries!
         
         Furthermore, Rummel defines democide as, "Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."
         
         There is no qualification that it must be one's own government.  How bout we ask the populations of Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gautemala, the Phillipines, and Japan how many civilians the U.S. military/government has killed?
         
         
         Or the slaves that were murdered in mind and body, and the Native Americans that were treated horrendously by a "democratic government," (since the colonies didn't stop their abuse after they won the Revolutionary War and enacted the Constitution)?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hey there, Sooner. Thanks for joining in the conversation.
            
            I think you are trying to make the point that Dr. Rummel’s data is not accurate but you do not offer any hard facts for us to review. If you have data that he has not considered, I am sure he would love to see it.
            
            I will however attempt to address the portions of your post that appear to be off topic. 
            
            You asked, ”Or the slaves that were murdered in mind and body, and the Native Americans that were treated horrendously by a "democratic government," (since the colonies didn't stop their abuse after they won the Revolutionary War and enacted the Constitution)?”
            
            Innersmiff’s challenge was based upon democide statistics of the 20th Century that are nearly universally accepted. All of the events mentioned in your question occurred in the 19th and not in the 20th Century.
            
            You are correct when you say, “Rummel defines democide as, "Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder." However, you also need to include the clarification text that explains “Democide's necessary and sufficient meaning is that of the intentional government killing of an unarmed person or people.” Here he makes “intentional” a necessary part of the definition. Therefore, the accidental, unintentional killing by the military in the course of armed conflicts is NOT included in the statistic. Not all deaths during wartime are democide. “I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle,” Dr. Rummel noted. {1}
            
            You asked, “How bout we ask the populations of Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gautemala [sic], the Phillipines [sic], and Japan how many civilians the U.S. military/government has killed?” Again, not all civilian deaths during military conflicts are democide. Furthermore, you will need to explain to Dr. Rummel why you think such deaths should be counted as democide and to us why they justify dismantling nation states in favor of anarchy since that is the topic at hand.   
            
            Thanks again, Sooner. Always a joy to exchange thoughts with you.
            
            {1} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I don't have the numbers that have been killed intentionally by democracies.  But he isn't including them all. I could figure out a rough estimate, but the point about him leaving off such an important point does weaken his research that he does NOT include anything prior to the 20th century.  It gives an inaccurate portrayal of democide.  So while it is "off topic," I am arguing the lack of statistics in these areas severely weakens his case.
               
               Your point about time frames is technically correct, and I understand it, but that's begging the question in favor of eliminating everything prior to the 20th century.
               
               
               Intentional killing only helps so much.  Many native Americans, slaves, and civilians in wars were intentionally killed.  Just take Vietnam as one example- http://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259 … ietnam-war  That is democide.
               
               As is Japan.  Both of these were intentionally committed by a democracy known as the USA, and in the 20th century.
               
               Furthermore, there is a problem with not intentionally targeting innocent civilians in a strike, but knowing very much that there is a high likelihood they are going to die.   If the military is targeting a bunker where the enemy is hiding, and the bunker is surrounded by civilians, it strains credulity to the breaking point to say the military is fault free when it comes to those civilian deaths, even if they were not the "target."  So Mr. Rummell's definition needs to be amended.
               
               Intentional is not a necessary nor sufficient condition.  Instead, the criteria can be replaced with acting with negligence of catastrophic proportions.
               
               One could be completely dishonest and say all killing in war is justified, because the intention is to bring the war to an end, not to kill massive numbers of people!
               
               As for nation states, if an institution is responsible only the 20th century deaths, I think that would probably justify revoking it's legitimacy.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey Sooner. Welcome back. I see, buddy, you have strong feeling about democide and Dr. Rummel's "Death by Government" without having read the book. 
                  
                  "I don't have the numbers…" is a significant admission! If you do not know the numbers then you also do not know if those numbers are large, small, medium, or super humongous. You obviously do not know the scale of the numbers but you assume your unknown numbers a) are "important", b) weakens his research, c) makes his portrayal inaccurate, and d) severely weakens his case. All of these conclusions, my friend, reached based on numbers that you admit, "I don't have the numbers…I could figure out a rough estimate."
                  
                  You are making judgements about Dr. Rummel's research and you have not bothered to read his book even after I provided the links! You further admit "leaving off such an important point does weaken his research that he does NOT include anything prior to the 20th century." (Emphasis added by you.) Dr. Rummel covers prior centuries in Chapter 3 "Pre-Twentieth Century Democide." {1} To make an appropriate contribution, you should first revisit the strand of this thread started by Innersmiff in which he limited the discussion to the 20th Century statistics. {2}
                  
                  
                  One of the concepts of democide analysis has totally escaped your attention because you have not bothered to read his book. The numbers are a compilation of estimates often taken from multiple authors or sources and then averaged. No single number should be interpreted as absolute. The numbers are intended to be analytical tools and not an inventory of the dead.
                  
                  Regarding Vietnam and Japan, you did not need to remind us that "both of these were intentionally committed by a democracy known as the USA, and in the 20th century." However, neither war had a big impact on the democide statistics of the 20th Century. If you intend to criticize the United States government, democide may be the worst possible way to go. You should have noticed by now that China, the USSR, and Germany have already nailed the gold, silver, and bronze medals in this category.
                  
                  You went on to say, "If the military is targeting a bunker where the enemy is hiding, and the bunker is surrounded by civilians, it strains credulity to the breaking point to say the military is fault free when it comes to those civilian deaths, even if they were not the 'target.' So Mr. Rummell's definition needs to be amended." Seriously, Sooner, I have a lot of respect for your intellect but this remark is both pompous and arrogant. You will find a similar example in the book. I suggest you read it. {3} I also urge you to spend your entire lifetime, like Dr. Rummel has, conducting your own research, and then writing your own book in which you get to frame all of the definitions to suit your own purpose. {4}
                  
                  I think I am done and can now dismount. I appreciate your taking the time to listen.
                  
                  {1} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
                  {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114917#post2442052
                  {3} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM
                  {4} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     ""I don't have the numbers…" is a significant admission! If you do not know the numbers then you also do not know if those numbers are large, small, medium, or super humongous. You obviously do not know the scale of the numbers but you assume your unknown numbers a) are "important", b) weakens his research, c) makes his portrayal inaccurate, and d) severely weakens his case. All of these conclusions, my friend, reached based on numbers that you admit, "I don't have the numbers…I could figure out a rough estimate.""
                     
                     Just because I don't have the numbers on hand does not mean they aren't significant.  I don't know how many people have died from cancer in the United States, nor do I know how many people die from heart attacks, but I'm sure it's a pretty high number!
                     
                     Furthermore, I did not say the numbers did not exist.  I simply said I wasn't aware of what they actually were. 
                     
                     But here are a few.  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Nati … government 10 million is more than the number of Jews killed.  THAT is significant, from another professor of Hawaii.
                     
                     http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peoples … 2262.shtml  Japan is so insidious because radiation doesn't just dissipate from the air.  It's hard to estimate how many lives were shortened by the dropping of the bombs.
                     
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Wa … n_military
                     
                     
                     "You are making judgements about Dr. Rummel's research and you have not bothered to read his book even after I provided the links! You further admit "leaving off such an important point does weaken his research that he does NOT include anything prior to the 20th century." (Emphasis added by you.) Dr. Rummel covers prior centuries in Chapter 3 "Pre-Twentieth Century Democide." {1} To make an appropriate contribution, you should first revisit the strand of this thread started by Innersmiff in which he limited the discussion to the 20th Century statistics. {2} "
                     
                     You claimed before, "Innersmiff’s challenge was based upon democide statistics of the 20th Century that are nearly universally accepted. All of the events mentioned in your question occurred in the 19th and not in the 20th Century."
                     
                     I wrongly assumed you meant Rummell had not looked at stats for previous centuries, and I trusted you were right.  This was just a misinterpretation.
                     
                     "One of the concepts of democide analysis has totally escaped your attention because you have not bothered to read his book. The numbers are a compilation of estimates often taken from multiple authors or sources and then averaged. No single number should be interpreted as absolute. The numbers are intended to be analytical tools and not an inventory of the dead."
                     
                     If they are analytical tools, and not "inventories of the dead," then that makes democracies even worse, because democracies sell themselves as being the high ground, as the beacon of hope, as the way to peace in the world.    It also makes my task easier, because I have no burden to match kill for kill.
                     
                     The U.S. government, a democracy, slaughtered, let's say, using the low average, 1 million Native Americans, and 100,000 Japanese.  We also had legalized slavery. 
                     
                     I'm not sure how many deaths it takes for you to see an institution as corrupt.
                     
                     "Regarding Vietnam and Japan, you did not need to remind us that "both of these were intentionally committed by a democracy known as the USA, and in the 20th century." However, neither war had a big impact on the democide statistics of the 20th Century. If you intend to criticize the United States government, democide may be the worst possible way to go. You should have noticed by now that China, the USSR, and Germany have already nailed the gold, silver, and bronze medals in this category. "
                     
                     I thought we weren't doing an "inventory of the dead."  Is it not significant to you a democracy would take such immoral actions?  How does this not play into analyzing the legitimacy of the state?
                     
                     Here's a little on Iraq.  http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stor … ccupation/
                     
                     Iraqis killed for what purpose?  This analytical tool tells me democracies can very much dehumanize and pulverize.
                     
                     However, you didn't respond at all to my point about intentionaltiy.  That's why I was very insistent on bringing up how intentional the civilian deaths were. 
                     
                     You also claimed intentionality had to be accounted for, so I did.   I'm not sure why you would then change to talking about time frames.
                     
                     ""You went on to say, "If the military is targeting a bunker where the enemy is hiding, and the bunker is surrounded by civilians, it strains credulity to the breaking point to say the military is fault free when it comes to those civilian deaths, even if they were not the 'target.' So Mr. Rummell's definition needs to be amended." Seriously, Sooner, I have a lot of respect for your intellect but this remark is both pompous and arrogant. You will find a similar example in the book. I suggest you read it. {3} I also urge you to spend your entire lifetime, like Dr. Rummel has, conducting your own research, and then writing your own book in which you get to frame all of the definitions to suit your own purpose. {4} roll"
                     
                     So you just don't respond to my argument against intentionality at all? 
                     
                     I'm not sure if you are doing this http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro … e_opponent  or this http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro … me_calling
                     
                     Anyway, people do argue for the position I was arguing against.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
                     
                     If you agree with the doctrine of double effect, you should explain why I am wrong, and not say I am "pompous and arrogant."  That's not an argument against my position.
                     
                     Nor does the discussion of the doctrine of double effect require me, or you, or anyone, to write an entire history on human democide.

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        
                        Hey Sooner.  I am happy to see you admit that what you do not know is significant.
                        
                        (That’s meant to be funny, BTW.)
                        
                        I can see my message is not getting through. I am sorry. I am sure we will share another topic in the future.
                        
                        Have a great day.
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I don't know the precise numbers.  Here's another example.
                           
                           Millions of people in the world die everyday from poverty, but I can't tell you offhand the exact numbers.   Does this mean the numbers aren't significant?  Clearly not, because the numbers are...
                           
                           8 million- http://www.un.org/summit/poverty.html
                           
                           A holocaust a day...
                           
                           And, I did CITE numbers in my response, to give some ballpark estimates, which you aren't responding to now at all.
                           
                           I also have no idea why you would not continue engaging.  You completely dropped all of your major points when I answered them, and didn't even respond at ALL to the doctrine of double effect, all the while insulting me.
                           
                           But to each their own.

                           replyreport
      3. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Quill,
         
         Firstly, I am in fact keen to hear any statist's defence seeing as it is their support of the state that allows what I see are great injustices to humanity, regardless of their perceived "qualifications" . I think it's important, as I want to make sure their defence comes from rationality rather than tradition: "It has always been so, so it must be so".
         
         I think we are in agreement that the state is dangerous in that when given too much power, that it has the ability to commit unspeakable horrors. But what you seem to be forgetting is that many of these totalitarian states used to be democratic nations. The Nazi state in particular is a good example, because totalitarianism did not arise at the drop of a hat to the surprise of the German people - it arrived slowly, and through the pretence of democracy and freedom. In actuality, the basic assumptions of the Nazi state, and the German democratic state (and all other democratic nations for that matter) are the same: the state has the absolute legal monopoly of force over X given land mass. Hitler was seen as a progressive and a forward-thinker in the 1930s, and only when it was too late were his true colours revealed to the masses.
         
         This in and of itself proves that democracy is no protection against democide.
         
         It's also prudent to point out that the biggest democratic government we have ever seen in the shape of the US, is responsible for millions of deaths in conflict across the world.  Clearly democracy is no protection against imperialism either.
         
         Can the deaths attributed to anarchism even compare to those millions?
         
         These things must at least put basic assumptions into question, if not convert you to an anarchist. We need to re-think how we run society.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Sooner28posted 10 years ago

   Haha I'm digging this, and the democide argument is irrefutable.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      bplusbobposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This seems to be a relative link to this topic.
      
      http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commenta … -marketers

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         For some I think that's true.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            bplusbobposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I'm reminded of what I would call The Conflicted-American Dilemma," Sooner, in a section of the dialogue from Orson Wells' movie, Citizen Kane:
            
            Charles Foster Kane: [to Thatcher] The trouble is, you don't realize you're talking to two people. As Charles Foster Kane, who has 82,634 shares of Public Transit Preferred. You see, I do have a general idea of my holdings. I sympathize with you. Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel. His paper should be run out of town. A committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of $1,000 dollars. On the other hand, I am the publisher of the Inquirer! As such, it's my duty - and I'll let you in on a little secret, it's also my pleasure - to see to it that decent, hard-working people in this community aren't robbed blind by a pack of money-mad pirates just because - they haven't anybody to look after their interests.
            
            Sadly in our present oligarchy where most of the media has sold out to a corporate takeover, the internet and social media have to take up this struggle of the inner of good and evil or the outer conflict of capitalism versus democracy.

            replyreport
      2. 67

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I wish!
         
         The financial elite did a lot of work installing central banks and financial oligarchy - things that Anarcho-Capitalists oppose, and are not likely to want to be rid of them in a hurry. Besides, Ayn Rand was a statist: she had no problem with state militaries raping and pillaging the world - another thing An-Caps oppose.

         replyreport
3. 59

   Dubesorposted 10 years ago

   Great comments and insight sharing on your three thoughts about socialism! Can I suggest, though, that since the government creates all these business forms like corporations, that they have to regulate them to make them workable and fair for all, especially for workers and consumers.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Glad you're enjoying the discussion. I think I should have put the anarchist bit in a different thread - I didn't know it would be that contentious.
      
      Are you coming from the perspective that only corporations would not exist without the state, or business as a whole?

      replyreport
4. 59

   Dubesorposted 10 years ago

   First off let me again say how great I thought your content against socialism was. That was really good content!
   Then I would like to say, while it is obvious your IQ might be higher than mine, I was trying to put forward one of my favorite arguments against those who call for no government intervention when it is all government intervention to set up corporations and other business forms like the partnership. Some people are all for the government helping out businesses in setting up, but then all of the sudden don't want anymore government involvement. They are not anarchists, they are all for government helping big business set up how they want to and then no help for workers or consumers.  I think they like to be called libitarians more than anarchists. The government forms these ways of doing business and so has to regulate what they created to make sure they did it right. For someone to say they are an anarchist and doesn't want any more govenrment regulations is to say they just want government to help businesses and no one else.
   I look forward to hearing what else you have to say.
   Good luck and take care.

   replyreport