What is land ownership anyways

[rbacon]

So far I haven't seen to much intelligence from yourself. You seem to be very puffed up with your own importance tho, rather typical for most uneducated Liberals.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

rbacon Posted Yesterday, 10:19 PM

  So far I haven't seen to much intelligence from yourself. You seem to be very puffed up with your own importance tho, rather typical for most uneducated Liberals.

Sparhawk Posted Yesterday, 09:48 PM

  QUOTE(rbacon @ Jul 27 2005, 08:43 PM)

Fleabag get off the gas you are full of cow dung.

Please don't bother to post if you are not capable of making an intelligent contribution to the discussions.

rbacon Posted Yesterday, 09:43 PM

  Fleabag get off the gas you are full of cow dung

As Greg points out, we shouldn't feed the troll. Ignoring ignorance is the best we can do.

[Hugo]

I am saying you will have to break the laws (both of your own gang and of Rothbard's [that of non-instigation])... to establish your gang of one.

Then the Holocaust and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are equivalent, aren't they?

It is a form of 'voluntary-marxism', which, I have claimed is as close to 'democratic marxism' you can get.

No, it isn't. Stop making up strawmen.

Or, the anarchists could take turns as absolute dictator, with no democracy, in alphabetical order, say. Either way, decisions will have to be taken by someone on matters that will affect the whole.

Again, you are making up strawmen. I have taken great pains to explain this to you. Don't pretend that you can't remember simply because you have no valid response to it.

In theory, if certain people could be chosen, and trusted, to put the good of all above the good of the few or the one, I would be in favour.

But they can't, and you know it. As you therefore reject One World Government I'm curious to know why it is you accept anarchy between nation-states but reject it within the states themselves. Are you sure that the various wars and wranglings that have given us our present-day borders are the most correct ones for humanity? If so, why? If not, why support them?

The removal of the fetters in human nature.

So, you think that anarchy would remove the fetters in human nature, but that taking a group of individuals, granting them coercive power over everyone else, concentrating the overwhelming majority of the means to force in their hands, abolishing all competing institutions and creating a mythical justification for their coercion in the minds of the populace would not remove the fetters in their nature?

By what miracle is this accomplished? The State already has everything that any criminal in an anarchist society could possibly dream of having, so how could anarchy possibly be any worse?

[Riverwind]

But they can't, and you know it. As you therefore reject One World Government I'm curious to know why it is you accept anarchy between nation-states but reject it within the states themselves. Are you sure that the various wars and wranglings that have given us our present-day borders are the most correct ones for humanity? If so, why? If not, why support them?

I agree that the current system of international governance does operate much like the anarchist system you advocate. However, it does not support your arguments that such a system would work if pushed down to the individual. In fact the failures of the international system today prove many of the points I been making about anarchy. A few points to ponder:

1) The international system is based on the premise of non-aggression - countries will tolerate the most horrific abuses within the bounds of another sovereign state in the name of keeping the peace. This is a morally unsettling thing to do but understandable given the alternative of using force. Applying a similar policy at the individual level would imply that by neighbor could rape and murder people and that would be ok since I have to respect his property rights. If you disagree then what is the moral difference between organizing a private security force to 'arrest' a abusive property owner and organizing an army to depose a dictator?

2) The international system favours people who are capable of organizing themselves into larger entities that speak with one voice. The EU has more power and influence than a collection of sovereign countries acting independently. You will find the same logic holds at the individual level. Even if it was possible to eliminate governments tomorrow you would find that many people would re-create them as a tool to look after their interests in a diverse world.

3) The current borders of countries are not the ideal, however, changing the current borders will almost always result in economic upheaval and possibly bloodshed so the status quo is preferable to the alternatives. That said, under the anarchist system fairness and justice are irrelevant concepts - the only thing that is important is property rights and therefore preserving the status quo would be acceptable. Why do you suggest that there is something wrong with keeping the status quo when it comes to national borders?

4) Government is a multi-layered structure and different kinds of tasks are best done at different levels. Water and sewers are best handled at the municipal level. International trade and currencies are best handled nationally. This means a world government would not necessarily replace all intermediate tiers of government - it only needs to do what is best done at the global level such as setting standards for green house gas emissions reduction and arbitrating national boundary disputes.

[Hugo]

The international system is based on the premise of non-aggression - countries will tolerate the most horrific abuses within the bounds of another sovereign state in the name of keeping the peace. This is a morally unsettling thing to do but understandable given the alternative of using force.

The international system is not entirely anarchist since it consists of predatory regimes all holding coercive power over their people. It is therefore in the nature of these regimes to be conservative and not to risk their own power and position. It is unlikely that the actions of a foreign State will affect them personally, but it is more likely that war against that State will affect them personally. Therefore, the vast majority of them will choose to leave other regimes alone, no matter how despicable, unless they actually believe it to be in the interests of the State to interfere, which is rare.

However, in anarchist society individual people do have a stake in what goes on, and are likely to suffer personally from a criminal. In addition, most of them will not be criminals themselves. Therefore, the same incentive to ignore criminal deeds in the anarchist society does not exist.

The international system favours people who are capable of organizing themselves into larger entities that speak with one voice. The EU has more power and influence than a collection of sovereign countries acting independently. You will find the same logic holds at the individual level. Even if it was possible to eliminate governments tomorrow you would find that many people would re-create them as a tool to look after their interests in a diverse world.

They would not recreate States since there are many ways to do this: labour unions, fraternal societies, churches, charities, activist groups, etc. The methods used obviously depend upon the action that needs to be taken. A labour union can be a very powerful, noncoercive force, particularly when its members are highly trained and hard to replace - a doctors union, for instance. A group that has the power to turn public scrutiny on dishonourable activity, such as an activist group, is also powerful. A fraternal society has the advantage of turning many individually powerless people (e.g. unskilled labourers) into a single, very wealthy consumer. But none of these things rely on coercion as the State does.

The current borders of countries are not the ideal, however, changing the current borders will almost always result in economic upheaval and possibly bloodshed so the status quo is preferable to the alternatives.

Well, uprooting the Nazi regime resulted in a lot of upheaval and bloodshed too. Would you have opposed WWII? If so, why? If not, at what point do you say a system is not worth abolishing?

That said, under the anarchist system fairness and justice are irrelevant concepts - the only thing that is important is property rights and therefore preserving the status quo would be acceptable.

They are not irrelevant concepts, just marketable ones again. They always were, in fact, it's just that we have given one institution a monopoly for a long time.

Why do you suggest that there is something wrong with keeping the status quo when it comes to national borders?

This begs the question of whether or not I think there should be national borders at all.

Government is a multi-layered structure and different kinds of tasks are best done at different levels. Water and sewers are best handled at the municipal level. International trade and currencies are best handled nationally. This means a world government would not necessarily replace all intermediate tiers of government

No, but to be a Statist and logically consistent you would have to believe that we need One World Government, and that all lower layers of Government must derive from this one.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Then the Holocaust and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are equivalent, aren't they?

Leaving one's own morals out of the question, yes they are. They both used, or tried to use, overwhelming force to be the one to dictate which 'rights' which group would have. The winner gets is who gets to define who gets what 'rights'. Interestingly, the German commander SS Lt. Gen Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski shook the hand of Polish AK leader Maj Gen Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski after the uprising had been put down, and granted the Polish insurgents 'Prisoner of War' status.

Then guess what happened, Hugo. The Russians came. They became the 'overwhelming force', and any 'rights' that had been established or bestowed by either the Germans or the Poles became moot. The Russians came with what little 'rights' that they were going to bestow upon the conquered territory, looting pillaging and raping (some survivors said it was on a scale 10 times what Germany had done earlier in the war) along the way.

[Hugo]

Then you don't believe the State is justified, Thelonius, merely that they happen to have the ability to subvert everyone else to their will. And if this is the case, and you can't see a difference between the Holocaust and the Warsaw Uprising, that also means that you see no reason why I could not violently overthrow the State.

So, when you admit that the State has no right to rule, that violence against the State is as justifiable as violence on behalf of the State, and you cannot argue that the State is pragmatically superior or grants greater utility, I am extremely puzzled as to why you cannot follow the logic of your own arguments and abandon your prejudices.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Then you don't believe the State is justified, Thelonius, merely that they happen to have the ability to subvert everyone else to their will.

Not exactly. There is still room for 'creative, non-harmful sedition'. A good accountant can save you from lots of tax.

So, when you admit that the State has no right to rule

In a pragmatic sense, no they don't, I'll agree, just as you equally have no inherent right to privately owning land.

that violence against the State is as justifiable as violence on behalf of the State,

'Justifiable' to the individual, sure it can be.

that also means that you see no reason why I could not violently overthrow the State.

I see plenty of reasons, but practicality is the only one I see actually preventing you from doing so.

and you cannot argue that the State is pragmatically superior or grants greater utility

No, that cannot be said. I haven't argued that the state would provide greater utility, but I believe in some cases it is or would be so. I also haven't yet told you why I think so.

I am extremely puzzled as to why you cannot follow the logic of your own arguments and abandon your prejudices.

Because, as I alluded to above, my prejudices get reinforced ( nay, proven correct) every day.

[Hugo]

Not exactly. There is still room for 'creative, non-harmful sedition'. A good accountant can save you from lots of tax.

A good accountant merely follows the rules the State lays out for him. This is not seditious at all.

In a pragmatic sense, no they don't, I'll agree, just as you equally have no inherent right to privately owning land.

Alright, so you agree that the State is just a bunch of thugs like the Mafia but more successful and systematic. Now, why do we need them? If you oppose crime, why not oppose the biggest criminals of all?

I see plenty of reasons, but practicality is the only one I see actually preventing you from doing so.

Well, people like you are actually the biggest thing preventing me from doing so.

No, that cannot be said. I haven't argued that the state would provide greater utility, but I believe in some cases it is or would be so. I also haven't yet told you why I think so.

Go on, then, make that case.

Because, as I alluded to above, my prejudices get reinforced ( nay, proven correct) every day.

Not in this thread, buddy. So far you've admitted to me that there is no good a priori reason for a State, that the State is just a bunch of criminals who rule by deluding the public into thinking there's a double standard in law, and so forth. Yet, you're still a statist. So clearly, your prejudices against anarchy are running roughshod over your powers of reason.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I suppose I should clarify with you that both the mafia and the gov't are made up of people. In the past, you have taken the position that 'gov't doesn't really exist as an entity', so I shall assume you undertand that 'those people' assume the power of law once they gain position in a 'state'.

A good accountant merely follows the rules the State lays out for him. This is not seditious at all.

You are right, rather than 'sedition', perhaps a better (although more verbose) line would be "creative interpretation of legal parameters as they pertain to definition".

If you oppose crime, why not oppose the biggest criminals of all?

You can't call taxation and policing a 'crime', when the state is given the 'right' to do so by 'law', whatever that may be in the particular time and place you are living in.

Alright, so you agree that the State is just a bunch of thugs like the Mafia but more successful and systematic

Not exactly, as above, the 'law' gives one the 'right' to do what they do, (though as we both know it can be abused) and Mafia 'operations' almost exclusively run contrary to law. Even an individual anarchist must have law, and further a means to enforce it, or it's worthless. Unless, of course, you follow every negotiation and interaction with the word "Please?".

QUOTE

I see plenty of reasons, but practicality is the only one I see actually preventing you from doing so.

Well, people like you are actually the biggest thing preventing me from doing so.

If you know a way to non-violently change the world into a government and violence-free and fair world, I urge you to pursue it. Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha couldn't do it. 'Cause people are in their equations.

Yet, you're still a statist. So clearly, your prejudices against anarchy are running roughshod over your powers of reason

My powers of reason and my pragmatism still lead me to believe, without a doubt, that at this time and place, the removal of the state (and thereby the elimination of state or federal law, by turning it over to private concerns) would more quickly lead to hell, instead of heaven, on earth.

[Hugo]

You can't call taxation and policing a 'crime', when the state is given the 'right' to do so by 'law', whatever that may be in the particular time and place you are living in.

So who grants the right and who makes the law? The short answer is the State. Therefore, the State is not criminal because the State says it is not criminal. Funnily enough, that argument never works for those the State tries as criminals.

Not exactly, as above, the 'law' gives one the 'right' to do what they do, (though as we both know it can be abused) and Mafia 'operations' almost exclusively run contrary to law.

Whose law? The Mafia have their own laws, and they are older than the laws of Canada. Why is it that the State's laws override the Mafia's laws? There's really no difference in their modes of operation. The answer, again, is that the State takes precedence because it can, because it is the biggest and most successful criminal gang of all.

Even an individual anarchist must have law, and further a means to enforce it, or it's worthless.

Yup.

If you know a way to non-violently change the world into a government and violence-free and fair world, I urge you to pursue it.

Well, this is two-thirds strawman. We both know the world will never be violence-free as long as anything lives on it, and we both know that "fair" is subjective. That leaves government.

My powers of reason and my pragmatism still lead me to believe, without a doubt, that at this time and place, the removal of the state (and thereby the elimination of state or federal law, by turning it over to private concerns) would more quickly lead to hell, instead of heaven, on earth.

Definitely. Remove the State and you remove all it does without having any alternatives ready to fill the gaps (policing, health, etc). You also create a huge power vacuum because without first changing attitudes, people will just seek to create another State.

The answer is to progressively try to roll back the State and replace what it does with market institutions. This is being done already, since the market operates in accordance with economic law and the State does not, the State is fighting a battle it can't win. This is why there are more private security guards than cops in the USA, and more court cases settled in private courts than State ones. The other part of it is to change people's attitudes and ideas. Again, perpetually falling voter turnout and increasing disenchantment show that people are growing riper for this, the problem is that they have not been shown a decent alternative. Hence my advocacy.

Unlike you, though, I don't think the answer is to keep slogging away at our broken system. This is like sitting on a nail and not moving because moving requires an effort. Not very smart.

[Nemo]

deleted

[Hugo]

All grants of right, interest and use in property (whether in fee, tenancy, or incorporeal hereditament) exist only by law of the state or sovereign power.

From what do they derive this power?

[Nemo]

deleted

[Hugo]

In a democracy, or constitutional form of government, power derives from the people.

If you don't have the right to steal your neighbour's land, enslave him to the military, or confiscate his money and give it to the poor, by what right do you confer this power on someone else?

Rights are not absolute, but only exist by law. The concept of natural rights inspired the American revolution (and that of France as well); however our Constitution represents a compromise between individual rights and the power of the state. Compare Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660) and Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762-3).

Hobbes did not know what he was talking about and contradicted himself. He claims that government arose because people need order, without government, there is only "warre". However, if the latter is true, then government could not have arisen. But if government arose, then the natural state of human beings without government could not be "warre".

The Social Contract is a myth. No State was ever created by social contract. The idea was created to replace the defunct idea of Divine Right. The best debunking of this theory was done by Lysander Spooner.

But again, this is old stuff. If you want to continue, you first need to read this thread, as before.

[Nemo]

deleted

[Hugo]

You attack my ideas and you are wise. I attack yours and I am wrongheaded.

I think Schopenhauer was talking about you. However, seeing as how I began as a Statist and ended up as an anarchist, he wasn't talking about me. Nor is it fair to lambast my criticism of authors as "uncritical thinking" when I took the time to explain exactly why I was critical. If we're not allowed to be critical of "recognized authorities" as you put it, then how on earth are we going to reconcile Marx and Smith?

In any case, I'll take that as your ignominious and very early concession.

[Nemo]

deleted

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

The answer is to progressively try to roll back the State and replace what it does with market institutions.

I agree, and yes, I have also seen it's benefits. I am anti-union, (not because I am a business owner) and have seen some private enterprises doing what used to be gov't union jobs that are now being contracted out. Road paving in Calgary is a prime example. They are done more efficiently, quicker and cheaper, with, in my opinion, equal quality. However, there is always a gov't foreman, or project engineer (or overseer) to ensure industry standards and federal law is being met.

I would also be in favour of at least a two-tiered medical system, of which Canada basically has anyway. Two of my customers recently sought medical attention outside Canada, rather than wait. One went to the US, one to Switzerland, because they both had the means (lots of money) and did not have the time. Politicians and pro athletes also have their own 'tier' of medical care, far above what the average shmoe has.

However, there are some things that I believe that the 'state' provides that will not be done by the private sector without some degree of 'fairness'. For instance, vehicle insurance. It is law that one carries vehicle insurance, (and I don't believe that it would be beneficial to society to remove this law), but the few insurance companies have everyone over a barrel, hiking premiums at will and recording record, multi-billion dollar profits while crying crocodile tears that they don't make enough money. ("all those damned people making claims, they are just trying to get our, I mean their, money back") However, gov't run insurance, such as ICBC have recorded profits, and provided coverage, at a reasonable rate and can be called successful.

There are a few other examples, which I don't have time for now, but I agree that a reduction in what the gov't has it's fingers in should be undertaken. I disagree with the abolition of gov't because of my prejudices towards people in general.

People, in groups, rely on base instinct far more than the individual. In given situations people stampede. People lynch other people. People commit genocide. People need law. People need all encompassing laws that all are (or should be) bound to. The only way to enforce federal law is through the 'long arm' of gov't. Perhaps this is the only neccesity of gov't, perhaps not.

[Hugo]

However, there are some things that I believe that the 'state' provides that will not be done by the private sector without some degree of 'fairness'. For instance, vehicle insurance. It is law that one carries vehicle insurance, (and I don't believe that it would be beneficial to society to remove this law), but the few insurance companies have everyone over a barrel, hiking premiums at will and recording record, multi-billion dollar profits while crying crocodile tears that they don't make enough money.

That is because the State has removed the ultimate last resort of the consumer: the right not to consume. You will find that insurance rates in Ontario, for instance, suddenly got higher soon after the Ontario government decided it was going to introduce no-fault insurance. Coincidence? I think not.

Insurance is a very heavily regulated industry. To take this and use it as an argument against the free market is not very honest. The fact is that in a free market, the insurance industry at this time would be ripe for an entrepreneur to start up a new don't-screw-the-customer company - all the others would have to follow suit or lose all their business. The reason this does not happen is because the government has made a don't-screw-the-customer insurance company illegal.

However, gov't run insurance, such as ICBC have recorded profits, and provided coverage, at a reasonable rate and can be called successful.

Only by those who have never had to deal with them. I have friends in BC who report that trying to get the ICBC to actually do something for you is a nightmare, and this was just for routine things like changing cars. They told me they dreaded actually getting into an accident and needing the ICBC for that.

There are a few other examples, which I don't have time for now, but I agree that a reduction in what the gov't has it's fingers in should be undertaken. I disagree with the abolition of gov't because of my prejudices towards people in general.

As I have already said, this prejudice should make you an anarchist. After all, if you feel people are greedy, self-serving and dishonest, what's the bigger mistake - to give them a market to compete in, or to give them absolute power over their fellow men?

People, in groups, rely on base instinct far more than the individual. In given situations people stampede. People lynch other people. People commit genocide. People need law. People need all encompassing laws that all are (or should be) bound to. The only way to enforce federal law is through the 'long arm' of gov't.

Absolute and total rubbish. Look at Rwanda, and choose one of the following two alternatives:

The Rwandan government helped to prevent and curtail genocide.

The Rwandan government was the primary perpetuator of genocide.

Let me give you another illustration. The murder rate in the USA at it's absolute highest in the 20th Century was 10 per 100,000. Let's assume that the average murder rate over the 20th Century worldwide was 5 per 100,000 (right now, in the USA, it's about 5.7 per 100,000). Let's say that the average population of the world in the 20th Century was 3 billion. Therefore about 15 million people were murdered by private citizens in the 20th Century, and that's a very high estimate. It's probably closer to 1/5 of that.

Now, according to R. J. Rummel, the governments of the world have murdered about 170 milllion people in the same time period (actually, 13 years less). That is a conservative estimate. The highest estimate that Rummel considers reasonable is 360 million murders.

So, Governments of the world have killed at least 11 times and perhaps more than 120 times as many people as have private murderers.

And you claim the State keeps us safe from each other? Lunacy, plain and simple.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

at this time would be ripe for an entrepreneur to start up a new don't-screw-the-customer company - all the others would have to follow suit or lose all their business. The reason this does not happen is because the government has made a don't-screw-the-customer insurance company illegal.

This is not exactly true, but I am not absolutely sure what the procedure is. There is no question that all of the 'insurance companies' are in cahoots. Normally I am very selective with my conspiracy theories, but they all seem to change their policies and rates to the exact same ones as the others, and at nearly the same time. The biggest reason is that all insurance companies (and in Alberta, I think there is only about 5 'carriers') have to be 'underwritten' by another, super-insurance company, of which there is only one. The part I don't know is whether or not the gov't has dictated that there shall only be 1, or if if the status quo is kept by the companies.

They told me they dreaded actually getting into an accident and needing the ICBC for that.

Private insurance is no better. I dread a car accident because basically the insurance companies are loan sharks, they'll lend you the money to get your car fixed at the time, but will jack up your rates and get 'their' money back, regardless of fault. My ex-boss got rear-ended twice in a year, and though neither were her fault, her rates went up. They told her "We're starting to see a pattern here", and classified her as a 'high risk' driver. If you make a claim, you're a risk, so it is best to settle privately, whenever possible, (the anarchist way!) even though it is the private sector.

After all, if you feel people are greedy, self-serving and dishonest, what's the bigger mistake - to give them a market to compete in, or to give them absolute power over their fellow men?

Well, I suppose I should clarify, with 'some people', and some are actually capable of selflessness, charity and goodwill. Perhaps the gov't should be run by volunteers!

Look at Rwanda, and choose one of the following two alternatives:

The Rwandan government helped to prevent and curtail genocide.

The Rwandan government was the primary perpetuator of genocide.

The Rwandan gov't was incidental to the event. It was more of a case of 'tribe vs. tribe', than it was 'gov't vs. the people' (ala Stalin or Pol Pot).

Now, according to R. J. Rummel, the governments of the world have murdered about 170 milllion people in the same time period (actually, 13 years less). That is a conservative estimate. The highest estimate that Rummel considers reasonable is 360 million murders.

Here is a bit from Wikipedia (of whom I am a bit mistrustful)

Rummel estimates that there have been 170 million victims of democide in the last century, as contrasted to some 38 million killed in war: according to his figures, four times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle. The high number of deaths outside of war circumstances is in part attributable to starvation and other causes arising from governments' flagrant disregard for human needs.

I am assuming these figures include armed conflict. 38 million killed in war is a bit of a wierd number. In WWII, the number of 'war circumstances' killed or missing, , of both combatants and civilians, between only Germany, Japan, China, Russia and Poland add up to about 50+ million. (This includes an estimate of approx 20 million Chinese civilians killed or missing) The total war estimate is about 24 million combatants and an estimated 40 million civilians killed.

Starvation!!??I can see some of the blame being put on Mao, and some on Stalin, but most famines are a direct result of environment, and then greed and stupidity, in that order.

Well, then, let's take a look at how many people gov't has saved. Forget the numbers, I'll just say 'the rest of the Jews and most of Russia'. One man (Hitler) used gov't as a tool to get people to do his bidding, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have done what he had done without gov't. He would have just needed enough followers to have 'overwhelming force' and he might have gotten started that much sooner.

[Hugo]

The biggest reason is that all insurance companies (and in Alberta, I think there is only about 5 'carriers') have to be 'underwritten' by another, super-insurance company, of which there is only one.

And who says they have to be underwritten? The State.

Private insurance is no better. I dread a car accident because basically the insurance companies are loan sharks, they'll lend you the money to get your car fixed at the time, but will jack up your rates and get 'their' money back, regardless of fault.

Yup. That's because they have you over a barrel, because the State has artificially constricted the market and removed the right of the consumer not to consume. If not buying car insurance anymore was an option, I would bet that at least one-third of Canadians would cancel their policy tomorrow - and the premiums would drop instantly.

If you make a claim, you're a risk, so it is best to settle privately, whenever possible, (the anarchist way!) even though it is the private sector.

Yes, the free market always wins in the end. Government cannot override economic law, no matter how much it wishes it could, and if you make legal operation difficult or impossible, illegal markets spring up. Look at drugs. There's still a huge trade in drugs, all that State intervention has done is to make them a lot more expensive and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

Well, I suppose I should clarify, with 'some people', and some are actually capable of selflessness, charity and goodwill. Perhaps the gov't should be run by volunteers!

What sort of person do you think would volunteer to hold coercive power over other people?

The Rwandan gov't was incidental to the event. It was more of a case of 'tribe vs. tribe', than it was 'gov't vs. the people' (ala Stalin or Pol Pot).

The State was the main vehicle for the genocide. The fact was that one tribe got control of the State. In any case, your argument that States somehow can create nonaggression amongst aggressive peoples is nonsense. Any society reflects the people in it. With peaceable people, you will have a peaceable society whether governed (Canada) or anarchist (Iceland). With violent people, you will have a violent society whether governed (Rwanda) or anarchist (Somalia). In any case, the State makes whatever situation you have, worse.

I am assuming these figures include armed conflict.

No, they do not. These are people murdered by their governments, either deliberately or e.g. through deliberate and avoidable starvation, such as when Stalin denied grain to the Ukraine, causing about 5 million deaths.

Starvation!!??I can see some of the blame being put on Mao, and some on Stalin, but most famines are a direct result of environment, and then greed and stupidity, in that order.

Minor famines are often the result of environmental factors, however, the greatest and most terrible famines humanity has suffered were man-made.

In any case, you are making yourself look very foolish by criticizing the most renowned source for this information without even knowing the most basic things about his work (e.g. your assumption that his figures include war dead, when his website shows very prominently that he didn't). Not to mention the fact that taking the most favourable figure for States and the worst-case figure for private murders still makes States several times more murderous than individual criminals.

Well, then, let's take a look at how many people gov't has saved. Forget the numbers, I'll just say 'the rest of the Jews and most of Russia'.

They weren't very successful in saving 'the rest of the Jews.' Oskar Schindler, I think, saved more Jews than were "rescued" by the Red Army from Poland. He was a private individual.

And who saved the rest of Russia - the Red Army, who was under the command of a man even more murderous than Hitler? Give me a break.

This is a ridiculous argument. How many people has government saved, indeed, and then you start talking about a war in which terrible massacres of civilians and innocents took place on all sides.

Give me an example of a government helping a situation and I'll show you how a government created the situation in the first place.

He would have just needed enough followers to have 'overwhelming force' and he might have gotten started that much sooner.

Hitler without a State would have been an anti-Semitic housepainter. German traditions of Statism and subservience to government gave him the respect his office needed and the desire for power, the mistakes of the Weimar and Hohenzollern governments gave him the circumstances he needed to rise to power.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know the actual numbers but I would think their are scores of insurance carriers in Alberta. Those carriers are not underwritten by any other, super or lesser. What insurance carriers do is reinsure their risks, spreading the risk, which is the foundation of insurance.

If, say, a company takes on a one million liabiluty, it may only retain 25,000 or so for its own risk. The rest will be spread through a network of reinsurers that will extend world-wide.

Incidentally, that is one of the overlooked factors by the proponents of public insurance.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

In any case, you are making yourself look very foolish by criticizing the most renowned source for this information

While I could spend more time on his work, I felt it was not worth the effort. Rather that choosing to dispute his figures and methodology, I will freely admit certain gov'ts have killed millions. I was merely trying to point out that his figures for 'war dead' appear to be very wrong. As to 'renowned source', that is very subjective. As I understand it, he is a professor of 'Alternative History', which sounds dubious at best. Most everyone else in the field of history are quite critical of his numbers, which are provided free of the burden of proof and sometimes reason.

More often than not, the 'lone voice in the wilderness' is that of the loon.

[Guest eureka]

Good company for Hugo. I thought similarly over his Chinese figures.