(August 27, 2013 at 11:15 pm)Koolay Wrote: Governments, in the last 100 years (so this is recent) according to statistics have killed 250 million people, and these are their own citizens, that the government claims to work to protect. This is not even include the many, many casualties in wars.
If we take the average world height of people as 175 cm, and multiply this by 250 million.
To put in perspective how many governments have killed, if you were to put these corpses standing ontop of each other it would be 437,500 km in length. The distance between the Earth and moon is just 384,400 km.
So in the last 100 years governments have created a body count going beyond the distance of the moon...
You think it's time to consider an alternative to creating a group of people using the initiation of force to solve social problems? How many times are we going to fall for the same trap over and over, like a battered wife clinging to the abusive husband, saying "this time he will be different!" IT'S CRAP! Governments are inherently evil and always will be, and after 250 million people; friends and family being killed, it's time to wake the fuck up. Have some PRIDE for god sakes! This addiction to government is monstrously catastrophic by any objective measure. The experiment is over, governments do not work- they just make things worse.
The social contract, voting, democracy, representatives- it's all nothing. It's just hell and noise that equals to absolutely nothing. Well, worse than nothing... Stop being the battered spouse defending her husband's violence, this addiction to the abusive relationship with government, it's shameful, by voting, supporting governments you are delaying the progress of humanity, and wiping the boots of your abuser, ultimately adding to the body count and destruction of voluntary society. Stop it.
'Governments don't kill people, people kill people.' The National Rueful Association
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
