Governments are The Number one Killer

[Rev. Rye]

Small crystals inserted into the palm of the hand that start blinking when you get to 30 years old.

Then, anyone with a blinking crystal can join the carousel ceremony and end up one glorious whole.

It's gotta work, who'd want to run from that?

How is Logan's Run a viable alternative to government?

[Walking Void]

Koolay is right. Furthermore, the increase of human population due to government misses the point. Government has increased as population has increased. To say that there are more humans under government therefore government is good is to say that there are more domestic hens than wild jungle fowl so Col. Saunders must be good. Koolay is a student of Stef Molyneaux - I recognized some turns of phrase - and Molyneaux states that we are tax livestock. I think he's right.

Dance, puppet, dance!

[Koolay]

You think it's time to consider an alternative to creating a group of people using the initiation of force to solve social problems?

I'm intrigued by this idea that if it was "every man for himself," humanity would be less violent and more agreeable. Because I'm not seeing any other alternative to what you describe above as government.

Are you saying that I need to create an entire system of society to function just to say that we should put down the guns?

I don't know how to organise society, I am just one man. But I know for sure that we should not organise society by pointing guns at each other to solve social problems. I could make predictions on how a non violent society would function, but that is more advanced. The purpose of my threads is to illuminate any person who is sceptical of the violence and hypocrisy of the world.

A society that runs on violence and threats of violence is immoral and inefficient, we all get that principle in micro examples. So let's apply that to government at large.

[Walking Void]

Facts and source, please. Anecdotes are too cheesy.

[Rev. Rye]

Are you saying that I need to create an entire system of society to function just to say that we should put down the guns?

Well, yeah. There's always going to be a bunch of bad apples, but, really, without that, those bad apples are going to see fit to take over. Then, there are two outcomes:
1) You don't get guns and you die.
2) You get guns and this starts up a war which will only end when A) An outside force sets in, or B) One side is either destroyed or enslaved. Needless to say, it's a far cry from your view.

But I know for sure that we should not organise society by pointing guns at each other to solve social problems.

That said, whether we should not do something or not doesn't mean it's possible to do something. And, seriously, there's no guarantee an anarchistic society will be any less violent than the normal society. Somalia, in fact, is showing the exact opposite.

I could make predictions on how a non violent society would function, but that is more advanced.

You ever heard of the Moriori? They were a perfectly pacifistic society living on the Chatham Islands. Then Europeans discovered them. And then the Maori of New Zealand finished them off. They did not last much longer after that.

The purpose of my threads is to illuminate any person who is sceptical of the violence and hypocrisy of the world.

And you fail to show any viable alternative to it.

A society that runs on violence and threats of violence is immoral and inefficient, we all get that principle in micro examples. So let's apply that to government at large.

In micro examples it works, because there, we have small groups of like-minded people. And they oftentimes try to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Applying it to large populations doesn't work, because, well, people aren't like-minded. Immoral or not, it works a whole lot better than anarchy. Are you picking up a pattern here?

[Koolay]

Well, yeah. There's always going to be a bunch of bad apples, but, really, without that, those bad apples are going to see fit to take over. Then, there are two outcomes:
1) You don't get guns and you die.
2) You get guns and this starts up a war which will only end when A) An outside force sets in, or B) One side is either destroyed or enslaved. Needless to say, it's a far cry from your view.

But since we are enslaved and ruled by the government now, and if the worse thing that could happen after removing the government is that we will have another government.

It's like saying to someone, 'we can put you on a treatment to remove your cancer, the worse thing that can happen is that your cancer will come back' I'll take my chances then!

That said, whether we should not do something or not doesn't mean it's possible to do something. And, seriously, there's no guarantee an anarchistic society will be any less violent than the normal society. Somalia, in fact, is showing the exact opposite.

Anarchy means rules but no rulers. Governments just have a monopoly on violence now, I rationally oppose all aggressive entities. Besides, Somalia is just the result of a failed state, it's hardly a product of a revolution of reason and philosophy.

And you fail to show any viable alternative to it.

My solution to replace stealing is not to steal. My solution to rape is not to rape.

In micro examples it works, because there, we have small groups of like-minded people. And they oftentimes try to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Applying it to large populations doesn't work, because, well, people aren't like-minded. Immoral or not, it works a whole lot better than anarchy. Are you picking up a pattern here?

I'm sorry but when does using violence work in a small group? Are you saying stealing, rape, and torture works well as long as it happens locally?

[bennyboy]

My solution to replace stealing is not to steal. My solution to rape is not to rape.

That's a great solution. The problem is, there are many people who don't follow it. And I'm willing to give up some of my liberty in order not to have one of those guys walk into my home and rape my wife and daughter, because he knows there are no governmental agencies to prevent him doing so.

[Rev. Rye]

It's like saying to someone, 'we can put you on a treatment to remove your cancer, the worse thing that can happen is that your cancer will come back' I'll take my chances then!

You do know that's kind of what happens with cancer treatments anyway, right? I mean, that's why people who have recovered from cancer say they're in remission. They'll never be cancer-free. Unless they die of something else, it will always come back. In fact, I once had a teacher who explained that, even if we could get rid of all other diseases, we'd still have cancer because cells always go rogue. So, yeah. The analogy doesn't work.

Anarchy means rules but no rulers. Governments just have a monopoly on violence now, I rationally oppose all aggressive entities.

You do realise that without rulers, you lack any way of enforcing those rules, right?

My solution to replace stealing is not to steal. My solution to rape is not to rape.

I said a viable alternative. You don't really think you can run a large society on the honor system, do you?

I'm sorry but when does using violence work in a small group? Are you saying stealing, rape, and torture works well as long as it happens locally?

Sorry, I must have gotten confused. I was talking about the anarchist system you seem to have proposed. Of course, that said, just because the government is evil doesn't mean it isn't a lesser evil.

[Tonus]

I'm intrigued by this idea that if it was "every man for himself," humanity would be less violent and more agreeable. Because I'm not seeing any other alternative to what you describe above as government.

Are you saying that I need to create an entire system of society to function just to say that we should put down the guns?

If you are advocating for the elimination of governments, it would be wise to make sure that you can replace it with something better, isn't it? Your topic isn't titled "guns are the number one killer" after all.

[gall]

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.

you do realize that actual meat bags make up these so called governments right???

My guess is other than the occasional bear attack that yields a kill human beings are the #1 killer of human beings.

Unless you know about some AI someplace that kills people too? Yes maybe no? Can we call it Louis?