"government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
B1s
Use link for the full article.
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le951104.html
A Disease Masquerading as its Own Cure
By Louis James
The late Robert Lafevre is said to have alleged that "government is
a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Our culture is ill.
Ayn Rand put her finger on it many different times and ways, as she
talked about the decaying moral fabric of our country. Republicans are
making similar noises these days as well. Walter Williams calls it
government sponsored immorality.
Philosophers call it the Public Goods Argument. This same poisonous idea --
that there are some things we need that will only be provided if the state
does it -- was the chink in Adam Smith's intellectual armor that has allowed
well intentioned persons and dictators alike to enslave us in the name of
helping us. This is the same Big Lie statists everywhere have used to
enhance the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
A growing regulatory apparatus has so "protected" us from harmful
activity that it is almost (if not actually!) impossible to earn a living
without breaking a law.
Civil law has become distorted to the point where incredible damage
awards for the most paltry of imagined wrongs have created an atmosphere in
which it is increasingly difficult for individuals and businesses to plan
ahead.
Criminal law is rapidly becoming nothing more than a brute's club
with which to beat the masses into adhering to whatever moral imperatives
(green, sectarian, socialist, or whatever) those in power at the moment
think are important.
The law enforcement community is being freed from constitutional
restraints and developing an agenda of its own.
But these things are symptoms, as is the chaos they produce. The
true nature of the illness that both produces and is produced by such
trends, like a viscous cycle of disease begetting disease, is human
irresponsibility. In modern times, the infection starts with the state --
itself built on foundations of Public Goods Arguments -- which attempts to
replace standards of just conduct with force (laws). It is rather like a
parent ordering children around, instead of enrolling them in doing the
right thing. It is the difference between "because I said so (and I'm bigger
than you are)" and "because it is the right thing to do (and this is
why...)." It is the difference between force and voluntary association.
Such preemptive use of force denies people the possibility of
choosing to do the right thing. This breeds irresponsibility. The illness
spirals toward crisis, displaying symptomatic chaos in ever escalating
horrors.
The state responds with more government involvement in
interpersonal affairs, which leads to more irresponsibility. People feel
caught up in some vast impersonal system that cares for them in inverse
proportion to its claims to do so. They feel this way because they are
caught in a vast impersonal system.
The most amazing thing about it is that very few people are
died-in-the-wool statists. The state itself doesn't even exist! We are
dealing with a phenomenon that, as violent and powerful as it is, is nothing
more than a pattern of behaviors exhibited by a community of individuals.
True believers in the myth do great harm with their worship, but the
greatest harm comes from the cooperation of good people who simply never
question the orthodoxy. Government, as a system and a pattern of social
organization, destroys the incentives that remind people that they truly are
responsible for themselves. It is simply a twist of history that places us
in an era where the mythology of the state has taken a form that obscures
the unhealthy nature of the whole notion.
This is worth repeating: to the extent that the state exists, it is
the aggregation of the beliefs and actions of the individuals participating
in the myth.
Think of it as a kind of mass mental illness.
Must it be this way?
Yes. The modern state, by its very nature and existence, tells you
that there are some things you just can't do for yourself. YOU ARE
INCOMPETENT! This is what every agency and office in the government tells
us, simply by existing. You are incompetent to decide what medicines to
take; we'll make sure your doctor can only give you the ones we think are
best. You are incompetent to defend yourself, or hire a security company;
we'll make sure you're kept safe and sound. You're too stupid to provide for
your senior years, so we'll do it for you...
And people listen. Precious few ever wonder how it comes to be that
government employees can be so competent when people are all such imbeciles.
If we're not competent to live, respond the people, then we can't be
responsible for our actions.
And the courts listen (well, at least the lawyers do). You are not
responsible, say the courts, you are an adult child of an alcoholic. You are
not responsible, agree the bureaucrats, you are too poor to look for a job.
You are not responsible, add the self-proclaimed leaders of the feminist
movement, you are just products of The Patriarchy.
Add to this mixture the well documented failure of government-based
solutions, and you have the perfect recipe for -- you guessed it --
escalating disorder.
The bottom line is that to govern is to rule, and to rule is to
enslave. No one is surprised when slaves produce no more than will allow
them to escape punishment. Why should it surprise us that people feel little
incentive to maintain a social order that dehumanizes them and over which
they have little control?
An adult with a work ethic is so rare that businesses assume that a
certain percentage of their resources will go to deliberate waste, outright
embezzlement, and theft. As a matter of course! Retailers call it shrinkage.
As a corporate restaurant manager, I simply knew that a portion of my food
and liquor cost was going to people who thought I was hopelessly naive for
being upset about it.
And the mythical statists are delighted; such irresponsible persons
clearly need their helping hand! (Those poor slaves, they'd starve without
us to take care of them! Yes, Marse IRS, we are slaves! Take our money, and
give it to those who'll tell us what to do!)
Make no mistake. If the bureaucrats and statists ever cured the
illnesses they claim to be treating, they'd be out of a job.
Now, I'm not claiming that all statists are deliberately
encouraging our society's illness for their personal gain. I think we all
know that a good number of them are simply pursuing personal gain with no
thought to the consequences at all.
Perhaps some do know that deteriorating conditions justify
increased budgets for their fiefdoms (certain sectors of the law enforcement
community come to mind). My guess is that these are probably outnumbered by
those who have simply accepted what they have been told about how much good
they are doing. They have very powerful reasons not to shed the light of
reason onto such assumptions.
And remember; individual bureaucrats, officers, justices,
legislators, presidents, and so forth -- who may or may not actually be
statists -- do not matter. Harmful actions by such individuals are worth
opposing, but just barely. What really matters is undermining the myth.
Chains do not a slave make. It is our acceptance of the myth that some men
and organizations have the right to tell us what to do that enslaves us.
So, how do we treat this illness?
The answer has to lie in reversing the basic pathology and in countering
the pathogen. The pathology is individual irresponsibility. The pathogen is
the state. The antidote is the individual's realization that she or he is,
in fact, free. It is a grim fact, but nevertheless true, that we can all opt
out of the myth by taking our own lives. No power of the state can prevent
this. The trick is to find less drastic -- and more productive -- ways of
opting out of the myth.
I urge everyone to accept the fullest responsibility for their
actions. I recognize that not everyone has the heart for this, but still
urge everyone to do the best they can to be examples. I also recognize that
some resistance can get one killed in short order, and hope that we are
still a long way from the time when such prices actually make sense.
However, this shouldn't be used as an excuse for not doing what we
can. We are not slaves, and we must not act like we are!
I maintain that the truth is that people put their own manacles on,
and keep the keys in their own pockets! Slavery is an attitude. The worst
fear of the mythical statist must be that one day enough people will realize
this and the power of the state will cease to exist.
Resist state programs that aggress upon you. Decry state crimes
loudly. Find out about arbitration, and don't use the state courts. Don't
use the post office. Don't collect social security (yes, you were lied to,
but SS money is blood-money, taken by force from non-consenting others).
Exercise your right to defend yourself. Don't cooperate with the state, or
participate in maintaining its fictions. If you are going to vote, for
life's sake, vote for the candidate or party that will truly work towards
reducing state power, size, and violence.
Above all, be an honest person of integrity that deals fairly with
all, and repairs any harm done to others. Show the world that people can do
the right thing without being forced to!
Lastly, we can dust off a word that was put away too soon.
Abolition.
A good, hard, uncompromising word, rich with historical overtones.
Abolition. The institutionalized coercion of some individuals by others is
still with us. Abolition. Perhaps we were naive to think that freeing the
slaves brought from Africa would be the end of a poisonous idea. Abolition.
Ideas die harder than that. Abolition...
It may be that, if we ever completely abolish slavery, the state as
we know it will cease to exist. So be it. I'm sure we can think of something
better. ABOLITION!!!
Jenn
laid down the specific laws he is complaining about!
In article <m5MZ4.8219$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
--
Jenn
The most potent weapon of the
oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed.
Steven Biko
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
B1s
part.
I'll type them up for you in a jiffy.
Chip
"Jenn" <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h85ma$fbv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Jenn
"B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
bigger
> part.
This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
medicine causes disease.
It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
so appealing!
Travis Pahl
>In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
> "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
>bigger
>> part.
>
>This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
>medicine causes disease.
>
>It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
>complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
>thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
>so appealing!
My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into work
everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
Travis
Travis Pahl
>In article
><Pine.A41.4.21.000602...@dante35.u.washington.edu>, Travis
>Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
>> > "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
>> >bigger
>> >> part.
>> >
>> >This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
>> >medicine causes disease.
>> >
>> >It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
>> >complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
>> >thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
>> >so appealing!
>>
>> My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into work
>> everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
>
>Unless, you inherited your wealth, you can't choose not to work!
I did not say anything about not working at all. All i said is that I do
not have to continue going to the same employer everyday. there are
thousands of other options.
>As long as their are more employees than employers, your words mean nothing!
I beg to differ.
>People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
>vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
>Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about democracy!
What a dumb arguement. nevermind. i thought you were interested in a
decent debate.
travis
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000602...@dante10.u.washington.edu>, Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>}
>}>People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
>}>vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
>}>Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about democracy!
>}
>}What a dumb arguement. nevermind. i thought you were interested in a
>}decent debate.
>
> Actually, he made a very cogent argument; you just don't
> want to deal with it. Conservatives *consistently* complain
> about democratically enacted regulations, even while they
> are demanding federal regulation themselves.
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
To say that a certain group does not democracy because they disagree about
a few policies is not a good arguement at all when the real discusion was
about whether government is causing or solving problems. Any political
party in this country at almost anytime has at least a few disagreements
with the current policy. To try and dismiss them as democracy haters
because of it is a childish lame arguement not worth my time.
Travis
Jenn
<Pine.A41.4.21.000602...@dante35.u.washington.edu>, Travis
Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
>
> >In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
> > "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
> >bigger
> >> part.
> >
> >This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
> >medicine causes disease.
> >
> >It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
> >complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
> >thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
> >so appealing!
>
> My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into work
> everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
Unless, you inherited your wealth, you can't choose not to work!
As long as their are more employees than employers, your words mean nothing!
People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about democracy!
>
> Travis
Mitchell Holman
}
}>People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
}>vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
}>Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about democracy!
}
}What a dumb arguement. nevermind. i thought you were interested in a
}decent debate.
}
Actually, he made a very cogent argument; you just don't
want to deal with it. Conservatives *consistently* complain
about democratically enacted regulations, even while they
are demanding federal regulation themselves.
Mitchell Holman
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
demanding more flag burning laws, more abortion laws, more
drug laws, more obscenity laws and more immigration laws to
remind us that we need to "get the government off our backs".
p@u.c
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article
>>Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
>>> > "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
>>> >bigger
>>> >> part.
>>> >
>>> >This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
>>> >medicine causes disease.
>>> >
>>> >It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
>>> >complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
>>> >thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
>>> >so appealing!
>>>
>>> My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into work
>>> everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
>>
>>Unless, you inherited your wealth, you can't choose not to work!
>
>not have to continue going to the same employer everyday. there are
>thousands of other options.
And what if they all demand that you work 80 hours per week with low
pay and no benefits?
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
B1s
choice, complete collusion, a monopolistic labor market?
That is the dream of all leftists. Absolute control by big brother.
Chip
<p@u.c> wrote in message news:fBe_4.273$x3.4589@uchinews...
Travis Pahl
IF that were the case, then I work 80 hours a week OR I become my own
employer. BUT that is not the case. Employers compete for employees in a
free market and in doing so they DO give benifits and they DO not require
you to work 80 hours a week, and they DO offer high pay. Not all
companies and positions do, but many do, and those companies get the best
employees.
'...to believe that Congress can raise the standard of
living for working Americans by simply forcing employers
to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to
claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a
law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.'
- Rep. Ron Paul 3/9/00
Travis Pahl
B1s
Too much of anything, including medicine,
will kill you!
Too much freedom kills only the stupid.
Chip
"Jenn" <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h9kpi$j0e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article
> <Pine.A41.4.21.000602...@dante35.u.washington.edu>,
Travis
> Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
> >
> > >In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
> > > "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
> > >bigger
> > >> part.
> > >
> > >This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
> > >medicine causes disease.
> > >
> > >It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
> > >complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
> > >thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
> > >so appealing!
> >
> > My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into
work
> > everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
>
> Unless, you inherited your wealth, you can't choose not to work!
>
> As long as their are more employees than employers, your words mean
nothing!
> People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
> vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
> Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about
democracy!
>
> >
> > Travis
B1s
> vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
> Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about
democracy!
How much more state, all those laws, and democracy do you want.
Would you want to make the private sector an endangered species, or just
sickly with regulation.
Chip
Jenn
"B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Jenn:
>
> Too much of anything, including medicine,
> will kill you!
>
> Too much freedom kills only the stupid.
You are hardly interested in freedom Chip. You constantly rail against the
institutions that create it, and your beliefs about feminism, would make any
person truly interested in freedom laugh. You honestly think Americans were
more free when women and blacks didn't vote, and argue that the 19th century
was some sort of golden age.
So freedom kills the stupid. May it come soon!
>
> Chip
>
> "Jenn" <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8h9kpi$j0e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article
> > <Pine.A41.4.21.000602...@dante35.u.washington.edu>,
> Travis
> > Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <qeSZ4.8380$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
> > > > "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >> Out of the approx. five million on the books, you'll want the far
> > > >bigger
> > > >> part.
> > > >
> > > >This is like claiming that because medicine doesn't cure everybody,
> > > >medicine causes disease.
> > > >
> > > >It was a rant! That is all! If people knew that he was really
> > > >complaining about the regulations of the number one most controlling
> > > >thing in their lives, namely their employer, his messages wouldn't be
> > > >so appealing!
> > >
> > > My employer does not regulate my life at all. I choose to come into
> work
> > > everyday. But I can stop anytime I want with no punishment.
> >
> > Unless, you inherited your wealth, you can't choose not to work!
> >
> > As long as their are more employees than employers, your words mean
> nothing!
> > People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
> > vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
> > Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about
> democracy!
> >
> > >
> > > Travis
B1s
> You are hardly interested in freedom Chip. You constantly rail against
the
> institutions that create it,
Freedom is not created. It is the absence of coersion.
and your beliefs about feminism, would make any
> person truly interested in freedom laugh.
So I think women make stupid choices at election time. Is that an unallowed
opinion. Politically incorrect, taboo thought?
What do you think about the choices women make at voting time, not just the
trend, but the information? Do you think women in general, follow the
issues, are well informed before they vote?
You honestly think Americans were
> more free when women
We had many fewer legal restrictions 100 years ago. I will not but all the
blame on women. Of course, we can fly, and have much access to information
now, thus much tech. based ability, but legally, and taxwise, we are
becoming servants to the state, and almost full time.
and blacks didn't vote,
I am against purvasive race distinctions. I think we can best be described
as human.
and argue that the 19th century
> was some sort of golden age.
It was a time when the USA leapt from a backward, agrarian state of "hicks,"
to become the world leader in standard of living, and a world power.
>
> So freedom kills the stupid. May it come soon!
Darwin is out there, statist.
Here is what you trust with every ounce of your sincerity, and with the
lives of all Americans, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren
. . .
A leading cause of death -
"governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century"
Take out the approx. 34 million war dead, and governments have murdered
about 3.2% of everyone who lived during the 20th century.
Chip
How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence
in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among
military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent
victims with either the approval or planning of governmentsthe
intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people
under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the
deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments
have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century.
The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been
approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about
502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about
249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent
of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40
percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80
percent of all the people in the U.S.
http://www.execpc.com/~jfish/fff/oct94-f6.txt
Chip
Jenn
"B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> People don't want their employers to not be unregulated, that is why they
> > vote in all those laws Libertarians, and Republcans bitch about! When a
> > Liberarian bitches about the State, they are really bitching about
> democracy!
>
>
> Would you want to make the private sector an endangered species, or just
> sickly with regulation.
I don't agree that regulation makes the private sector sickly. Labor
Regulations have made it so employers don't have cut labor costs inorder to
make their products more competitive. Laborors at the low end should not be
forced to compete with a bottom line so low, that they can't live!
>
> Chip
Jenn
"B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You are hardly interested in freedom Chip. You constantly rail against
> the
> > institutions that create it,
>
> Freedom is not created. It is the absence of coersion.
The government protects you from coersion, thus freedom wouldn't exist
without government!
>
> and your beliefs about feminism, would make any
> > person truly interested in freedom laugh.
>
> So I think women make stupid choices at election time. Is that an unallowed
> opinion. Politically incorrect, taboo thought?
Who are you talking too!
I just don't think any well informed women would vote for the party of
falllwell.
>
> What do you think about the choices women make at voting time, not just the
> trend, but the information? Do you think women in general, follow the
> issues, are well informed before they vote?
They are no worse than mens. The whole electorate votes on likability rather
than issues. Women currently favor George Bush!
>
> You honestly think Americans were
> > more free when women
>
> We had many fewer legal restrictions 100 years ago. I will not but all the
> blame on women. Of course, we can fly, and have much access to information
> now, thus much tech. based ability, but legally, and taxwise, we are
> becoming servants to the state, and almost full time.
Nonesense. The business sector was heavily supported by tax dollars, on
ordinary Americans. They had no right to expect not to be regulated in
return. The Government has a responsiblity to promote the general wealfare.
I certainly wouldn't want to see what this country was like with no labor
regulations, or environmental regulations.
>
> and blacks didn't vote,
>
> I am against purvasive race distinctions. I think we can best be described
> as human.
Ok, whatever! But you can't argue that black americans had fewer legal
restrictions 100 yrs ago.
Women who are half the population, could go to prison for birth control use,
voting, and abortions.
>
> and argue that the 19th century
> > was some sort of golden age.
>
> It was a time when the USA leapt from a backward, agrarian state of "hicks,"
> to become the world leader in standard of living, and a world power.
We lept forward as a world power, primarily because of the government gave
taxpayer supported money to industrialists, who used it to make weapons for
WW1. Our standard of living went down due to industrialization, and didn't
improve until the New Deal reforms.
> >
> > So freedom kills the stupid. May it come soon!
>
> Darwin is out there, statist.
>
Just admit you want poor people to die off like Dinasours, based upon an
artificial economy enforce by coersion. We can end the argument hear.
> Here is what you trust with every ounce of your sincerity, and with the
> lives of all Americans, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren
> . . .
>
> A leading cause of death -
>
> "governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century"
>
> Take out the approx. 34 million war dead, and governments have murdered
> about 3.2% of everyone who lived during the 20th century.
>
> Chip
>
> How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence
> in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among
> military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent
> victims with either the approval or planning of governmentsthe
> intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people
> under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the
> deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments
> have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century.
>
> The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been
> approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about
> 502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about
> 249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent
> of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40
> percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80
> percent of all the people in the U.S.
Now we are going in circles. You still haven't answered my doctor analogy,
other than to backtrack and say too much government. See once you
acknowledge that even a little government is nessesary this example becomes
stupid.
I would point out, that no social democracy, participated in any such
atrocities.
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~jfish/fff/oct94-f6.txt
>
> Chip
Jenn
100...@dante18.u.washington.edu>, Travis Pahl
<tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
>
>>In article <Nv4%4.8994$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
>> "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > You are hardly interested in freedom Chip. You constantly
rail against
>>> the
>>> > institutions that create it,
>>>
>>> Freedom is not created. It is the absence of coersion.
>>
>>The government protects you from coersion, thus freedom
wouldn't exist
>>without government!
>
business or a
>organization is that it can legitamatly use coercion. Anyone
else that
>does this is considered a criminal.
>
>Travis
You wouldn't stand a chance on your own if the mafia demanded
protection money.
I still point out that no social democracy has ever participated
in any of the actrocities mentioned
BTW, I see your running around claiming to be a hard working
poor libertarian. This is clearly disproved by your ability to
post 24 hrs non-stop!
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.0006101530390.86692-
>100...@dante18.u.washington.edu>, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jenn wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Nv4%4.8994$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
>>> "B1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > You are hardly interested in freedom Chip. You constantly
>rail against
>>>> the
>>>> > institutions that create it,
>>>>
>>>> Freedom is not created. It is the absence of coersion.
>>>
>>>The government protects you from coersion, thus freedom
>wouldn't exist
>>>without government!
>>
>>Actually the only that makes government different from a
>business or a
>>organization is that it can legitamatly use coercion. Anyone
>else that
>>does this is considered a criminal.
>>
>>Travis
>
>You wouldn't stand a chance on your own if the mafia demanded
>protection money.
As I said... the governemnt is the only organization that can legitamtly
use coercion.
>
>BTW, I see your running around claiming to be a hard working
>poor libertarian. This is clearly disproved by your ability to
>post 24 hrs non-stop!
except you have no idea what I do for a living, nor do you know my hours
that I do work. Nor do you need to know.