NationStates Jolt Archive

War, real and imagined, is a favorite discussion topic for many on this message board. However, few people realize that as horrible as war has become in the 20th and 21st centuries it is actually governments that are the greatest threat to their citizens. Especially totalitarian governments.

In the 20th century the total death count from war was 35.6 million people.

Pretty terrible.

Yet, more terrible has been the mass murder carried out by governments. Demicide, or murder by one's own government, accounted for almost 120 million deaths.

That makes the 20th century the bloodiest century in human history.


WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER
By R.J. Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

War, real and imagined, is a favorite discussion topic for many on this message board. However, few people realize that as horrible as war has become in the 20th and 21st centuries it is actually governments that are the greatest threat to their citizens. Especially totalitarian governments.

In the 20th century the total death count from war was 35.6 million people.

Pretty terrible.

Yet, more terrible has been the mass murder carried out by governments. Demicide, or murder by one's own government, accounted for almost 120 million deaths.

That makes the 20th century the bloodiest century in human history.


WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER
By R.J. Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

And yet some people want to eradicate civilian ownership of small arms, leaving the gov't with the guns. Stupid, at the least.

It really depends how you define murder and what information was used. An example might be The Holocaust, was that government murder or war-related murder? Another might be poor health care, is that murder or negligent manslaughter...

It really depends how you define murder and what information was used. An example might be The Holocaust, was that government murder or war-related murder? Another might be poor health care, is that murder or negligent manslaughter...

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder (this also include artificial famines, such as in Ukraine under Stalin and China under Mao).

Definition of Demicide (for use it calculating death statistics)
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/killings.gif
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

Just some stats and figures.

EDIT: Just in case you want to know what the colours mean...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/killing2.gif

Great chart! Very visual. However, it undercounts deaths by both the Soviet Union (62 million) and Communist China (close to 39 million) dramatically.

Great chart! Very visual. However, it undercounts deaths by both the Soviet Union (62 million) and Communist China (close to 39 million) dramatically.
Not really, because it shows death per year, not deaths per sé.

And yet some people want to eradicate civilian ownership of small arms, leaving the gov't with the guns. Stupid, at the least.
I heard somewhere that San Fransisco has already taken steps to do this. Not sure how true it is, though it doesn't surprise me.

Well, wait. Governments kill people, and war is one of the ways in which they do it. Government and war are NOT separate issues.

Too many people put faith in having a good ol shotgun in case of an uprising against the government, but what good would our civilian weapons do against the US military?

Too many people put faith in having a good ol shotgun in case of an uprising against the government, but what good with our civilian weapons do against the US military?

I agree. People forget that guns were legal in Nazi Germany.

Besides, most crimes commited by governments as in large scale Genocides are carried out during some sort of war, that is why when caught, those responsible are put before a War Crimes Tribunal.

I agree. People forget that guns were legal in Nazi Germany.
And too many people forget that Hitler actually relaxed gun laws in Germany from what they had been previously under the Weimar Government.

In conclusion, governments kill more people because they last longer than wars. If looked on a deaths/time scale, wars kill more people. Which one is worse, I don't know. Depends, I suppose.

I agree. People forget that guns were legal in Nazi Germany.

The difference is, Nazi Germany was a culture that respected and followed Authority. Leadership.

America is a country that was founded by overthrowing authority and leadership.

Another difference is that Germany, being much smaller geographically and population-wise, is much easier for a centralized force to control.

America, in both ways, is much more difficult.

And as for the old "what good will my gun do vs tanks and shit?"

Well, I wonder if you really understand how well a modern military can fight a war, on all fronts, without supplies. And WOULD they even fight against the people? And how well did the unstoppable US military crush those paltry-armed Vietnamese? They won every battle... but winning the war is something else.

It wasn't my intent to get off on a discussion of the issues with gun regulation. The real answer to demicide, or murder by government, is democracy.

The more democratic a society, the less likely its government will kill its people. The greatest mass murders - Stalin, Mao, Hitler - all were totalitarian rulers.

The more democratic a society, the less likely its government will kill its people. The greatest mass murders - Stalin, Mao, Hitler - all were totalitarian rulers.
And you expected someone to disagree with you?

And you expected someone to disagree with you?

Is a discussion predicated on disagreement?

And you expected someone to disagree with you?

Heh.

Well, they were totalitarian rulers yes... but Stalin had (and still does, so I hear) a popular support, and Hitler rose to power in a federal republic...

I think it is a bit too optimistic to assume that because a government has democratic <sic> processes it is immune to being abused down the old road of mass murder. Maybe I'm just cynical, but democracy - rule by the people - is generally also what you find in mobs and riots too...

Is a discussion predicated on disagreement?
If it's to be any fun it is. :D

Heh.

Well, they were totalitarian rulers yes... but Stalin had (and still does, so I hear) a popular support, and Hitler rose to power in a federal republic...

I think it is a bit too optimistic to assume that because a government has democratic <sic> processes it is immune to being abused down the old road of mass murder. Maybe I'm just cynical, but democracy - rule by the people - is generally also what you find in mobs and riots too...

Yet, the statistics don't lie. All the mass murderers of the 20th century were either authoritarians or totalitarians, popular or no.

Democracies have not only not made war on each other, but they also have, by far, the least foreign violence, domestic collective violence, and democide (murder by government).

Yet, the statistics don't lie. All the mass murderers of the 20th century were either authoritarians or totalitarians, popular or no.


It's the principle of the matter. Democracy you suggest is inherently anti-demicidal, but democracy and popularism are very closely related. If not basically the same thing. So what is there inherent about the whole, 'will of the people' thing that's any guarantee from either state sanctioned murder, or the rise of authoritarian/totalitarianism?


Democracies have not only not made war on each other, but they also have, by far, the least foreign violence, domestic collective violence, and democide (murder by government).

Police states have pretty low domestic collective violence too... and considering foreign violence, hasn't the US invaded numerous countries, often with little to no real reasons, killing plenty of civilians, accidentally or otherwise? It was a democracy that so far has dropped the first (and only) nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.

All the mass murderers of the 20th century were either authoritarians or totalitarians, popular or no.
And many of the 19th century mass murderers were working for democratic governments. The Native Americans come to mind, as well as various African tribes and Indians.

Democracies have not only not made war on each other...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

It's the principle of the matter. Democracy you suggest is inherently anti-demicidal, but democracy and popularism are very closely related. If not basically the same thing. So what is there inherent about the whole, 'will of the people' thing that's any guarantee from either state sanctioned murder, or the rise of authoritarian/totalitarianism?



Police states have pretty low domestic collective violence too... and considering foreign violence, hasn't the US invaded numerous countries, often with little to no real reasons, killing plenty of civilians, accidentally or otherwise? It was a democracy that so far has dropped the first (and only) nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.


Your common man is not usually interested in usurping the resources of another nation, and doesn't take offence to political or aristocratic slights. Politicians/aristocrats do.



And that last part is just a cheap shot in so many ways:

For starters you make it sound like the US is a police state.

Second the US track record for invasions is no where near as bad as many other nations.

Third the US doesn't just up and invade countries for little to no reason that often. Places like Iraq are more an exception than a rule. Perhaps the US foreign policy is prohibitively bossy, but this is no worse than other hegemons did during their reign. Look at what the British empire did before the US. And the Dutch before the British. And the Mongols... and the Romans... and just keep on looking. The more totalitarian the state the more abusive it was when it became a superpower.

The US track record for killing civilians is extremely low, especially once you consider the amount of military action it has undertaken. The US rule of engagement used to get more US soldiers killed than inadvertent killing of civilians. Vietnam was a bloodbath not for civilians but for US soldiers because the US stupidly agreed to "no-fire" zones which simply let the enemy base its operations out of these areas. The US does way more than most countries to avoid civilian casualties, and to suggest otherwise simply doesn't look at all the facts.

Maybe the current regime isn't exactly a sparkle on the US record, but don't act like you can generalize the current administration to the entirety of US foreign action.


And the last part takes a very complicated issue and vastly over simplifies it. Maybe Truman did have some ulterior political motives for dropping the atomic bomb. But I can scarcely imagine how Japan would have been better off with the US not dropping it. Yeah the effects of the bomb were devastating. It destroyed the lives of many Japanese people. And it continued to cause cancer for some 20 years after its use. But the total deaths involved were probably less than what would have happened if the US invaded Japan. Now maybe you don't count the loss of the lives of soldiers, but I most certainly do. They are people too! And the Japanese showed remarkable resiliency in their attitude regarding war. Some of the officials are reported to have wished to continue fighting even after the second bomb drop. Had the US been forced to invade to stop the Japanese war machine there would have been untold blood shed on both sides; heck the Japanese were training their school children to fight. And perhaps worst of all the Soviets would have gotten their paws on Japan. And I can scarcely imagine how living under Stalin would have given Japan even a remote chance at a prosperous future.

So dropping the Bomb tragic? Most definitely.
Did it cause a great deal of suffering? Again, most definitely.

But claiming that it is entirely without justification is overly harsh at best and vapid critique at worst. And Truman in his memoirs noted how troubling the decision was for him, so don't act like this guy was out for vengeance either.


NT

Your common man is not usually interested in usurping the resources of another nation, and doesn't take offence to political or aristocratic slights. Politicians/aristocrats do.


Oh, I know people aren't USUALLY interested in war for those reasons.

But the reasons don't matter. People get behind wars, for whatever reasons. I'd love to just blame the "elites" for it, but it just doesn't work that way. Especially in a 'democracy.'

And that last part is just a cheap shot in so many ways:

For starters you make it sound like the US is a police state.

That was not my argument at all.

Second the US track record for invasions is no where near as bad as many other nations.

Well, so is "less evil" now not really evil at all? I'm nowhere near as bad as Hitler, so I must be a good guy?


Third the US doesn't just up and invade countries for little to no reason that often.

Well, how often is "that often?"

And does that, again, make it all right? Imagine: "I don't beat my wife that often."

Places like Iraq are more an exception than a rule.

wellllll

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

The US does way more than most countries to avoid civilian casualties, and to suggest otherwise simply doesn't look at all the facts.


Well, yeah, we do our best to avoid killing civilians, except for the readiness with which we go to war and wind up killing them.

To go with another crime analogy, "I do my best to avoid breaking the bones of women when I rape them."


And the last part takes a very complicated issue and vastly over simplifies it. Maybe Truman did have some ulterior political motives for dropping the atomic bomb. But I can scarcely imagine how Japan would have been better off with the US not dropping it. Yeah the effects of the bomb were devastating. It destroyed the lives of many Japanese people. And it continued to cause cancer for some 20 years after its use. But the total deaths involved were probably less than what would have happened if the US invaded Japan. Now maybe you don't count the loss of the lives of soldiers, but I most certainly do. They are people too! And the Japanese showed remarkable resiliency in their attitude regarding war. Some of the officials are reported to have wished to continue fighting even after the second bomb drop. Had the US been forced to invade to stop the Japanese war machine there would have been untold blood shed on both sides; heck the Japanese were training their school children to fight. And perhaps worst of all the Soviets would have gotten their paws on Japan. And I can scarcely imagine how living under Stalin would have given Japan even a remote chance at a prosperous future.

So dropping the Bomb tragic? Most definitely.
Did it cause a great deal of suffering? Again, most definitely.

But claiming that it is entirely without justification is overly harsh at best and vapid critique at worst. And Truman in his memoirs noted how troubling the decision was for him, so don't act like this guy was out for vengeance either.


NT

Your argument about the morality of the bomb is quite irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that for all the inherent fuzzy goodness of "democracies," it was no democracy that first used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. No authoritarian nation, then or after, has done the same thing.

Governments killing people? Definitely not. The men in black suits kill very few people. Their orders cause people to be killed, yes, but it is always the military that fires the shots. Just because it happens to be in their own territory doesn't mean it's not an army.

The argument that democracies are far less likely to engage in Demicide (murder by government) by no means implies that democracies are perfect or that people who live in democracies are somehow sainted. It is merely a reflection of the basic axium that power corrupts and absolutel power corrupts absolutely.

Have democracies done terrible, horrible things? Absolutely. In the 19th c. the United States engaged in slavery and genocide. In the 20th c. they dropped atomic bombs on Japan. The British in the 19th and 20th century took part in a number of massacres of native people in their colonies. Both countries firebombed the civilians of Dresden, Germany during the second world war.

That being said, these atrocities, terrible as they are, don't begin to approach the magnitude of terror inflicted on people by totalitarian and authoritarian governments.

If you messure all governments by some imaginary utopian standard, then I fear you will be forever disappointed.

And without government in general, none of these people would have been alive to begin with.


Government is mankind's greatest invention, by leaps and bounds.

Too many people put faith in having a good ol shotgun in case of an uprising against the government, but what good would our civilian weapons do against the US military?

Ok if some mamasans wearing rice patty hats and AK-47's can whoop the US military, then its possible, people over rate the US way to much, you get an organzed group together with weapons and you can go far, Guerrila war, and besides, would you rather die at the hands of the government by being executed, or would you rather take up arms and at least give them a fight before you die.

Too many people put faith in having a good ol shotgun in case of an uprising against the government, but what good would our civilian weapons do against the US military?
Given the volunteer nature of the US army and the number of shotguns, rifles, and handguns in the US, I'm going for the people. Even with an army without any deserters the people would win. And that's with the home army trying to take over the US. An outside country, never.

And without government in general, none of these people would have been alive to begin with.

Government is mankind's greatest invention, by leaps and bounds.

So what is your point? Government gives life and can therefore take it away?

So what is your point? Government gives life and can therefore take it away?


That any semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy which this thread might be intented to hash out is ridiculous; that government is not only necessary but enormously beneficial.

That any semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy which this thread might be intented to hash out is ridiculous; that government is not only necessary but enormously beneficial.

I see your point: government is the best thing ever to hit humanity, because it's enormously beneficial and necessary.

Well, I counter that argument with a you're wrong, because you are speaking untruths. Nyah!

That any semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy which this thread might be intented to hash out is ridiculous; that government is not only necessary but enormously beneficial.

and what happens when the beloved government becomes corrupt and totalitarian?

and what happens when the beloved government becomes corrupt and totalitarian?


The history of the 20th century seems to illustrate this pretty well, especially how rare genocide is.

Thankfully, this is the exception rather than rule, the rule being that government raises both the population and the quality of life across-the-board.

That any semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy which this thread might be intented to hash out is ridiculous; that government is not only necessary but enormously beneficial.

Let's skip over your juvenile insults and get to the point of the thread. It is not a call for anarchism, which only leads to authoritarian/totalitarian forms of government, which in turn have a horrible track record of killing their own people. It is to demonstrate that the best form of government, in terms of not exterminating its own people, is democracy.

One can acknowledge that the creation of government in general was beneficial, without embracing or excusing totalitarian mass murder.

Or was it your intent to say all governments are equally good and one shouldn't criticize those forms of government that have killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century?

The history of the 20th century seems to illustrate this pretty well, especially how rare genocide is.

Thankfully, this is the exception rather than rule, the rule being that government raises both the population and the quality of life across-the-board.

um, are that willing to just role over and let shit like that happen? I dont beleive in anarchy either, but I do believe the people alone should hold the power in the government. so much power in the hands of a few is a great mistake, and genocide seems to have been the "thing" last century, there was a shit load, and it doesnt have to be like that, governments should be challenged, at all times.

Let's skip over your juvenile insults and get to the point of the thread. It is not a call for anarchism, which only leads to authoritarian/totalitarian forms of government, which in turn have a horrible track record of killing their own people. It is to demonstrate that the best form of government, in terms of not exterminating its own people, is democracy.

One can acknowledge that the creation of government in general was beneficial, without embracing or excusing totalitarian mass murder.

Or was it your intent to say all governments are equally good and one shouldn't criticize those forms of government that have killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century?


I dont see anyone embracing or excusing totalitalian mass murder.

If we dont disagree on the point of "anarchism" then we don't seem to disagree on anything.

The history of the 20th century seems to illustrate this pretty well, especially how rare genocide is.




Are you kidding me!?!?

Have you not been reading?


Communist China (1948-1987) - 78 million (when the 38 million for Mao's famine is included)
Soviet Russia (1917-1987) - 62 million
Nazi Germany (1933-1945) - 21 million
Nationalist China (1928-1949) - 10 million


And those are only the big ones. They don't include the lesser mass murdering governments. Ten regimes, between 1900-1987, murdered 1,000,000 people or more, but less than 10,000,000.

Is your world so black and white that you can only recognize some kind of binary opinion of government - good or bad?

Dont governments cause the deaths in war as well as many of the rest of them that were listed?

On the plus side the vast majority of the people killed via the actions of the various governments in the 20th century would be dead by natural causes and accidents by now anyway. So we arent needlessly without that large a percentage of them.

I dont see any problem with killing mass #s of civilans it makes them work harder controls population china has 2 billion people as it is if they hadnt fought wars their would be worse starvation. Personaly I dont think the USA is exempt from mass killing Agnet orange in vietnam now many of our own troops have cancer well how bad do you think it is their.

Genosides is a great part of Goverment if you fight a war once in a while you increace tecnology. With out the cold war man never would have reached the moon. For more personal lifes teliphones greater ships all possible thanks to war. with out war we would all be living in caves with out war.

You never gain somthing with out sacrifice and if it costs millions of lifes to have world wide transportation communication things that make life fun the nit should damn well be done.

Are you kidding me!?!?

Have you not been reading?


Communist China (1948-1987) - 78 million (when the 38 million for Mao's famine is included)
Soviet Russia (1917-1987) - 62 million
Nazi Germany (1933-1945) - 21 million
Nationalist China (1928-1949) - 10 million


And those are only the big ones. They don't include the lesser mass murdering governments. Ten regimes, between 1900-1987, murdered 1,000,000 people or more, but less than 10,000,000.

Is your world so black and white that you can only recognize some kind of binary opinion of government - good or bad?

Is this more people than were killed by disease in the 20th century?

On the plus side the vast majority of the people killed via the actions of the various governments in the 20th century would be dead by natural causes and accidents by now anyway. So we arent needlessly without that large a percentage of them.

It is a virtual certainty that you will one day die. Why not end it all today? In the long run the result will be the same, won't it?

Are you kidding me!?!?

Have you not been reading?


Communist China (1948-1987) - 78 million (when the 38 million for Mao's famine is included)
Soviet Russia (1917-1987) - 62 million
Nazi Germany (1933-1945) - 21 million
Nationalist China (1928-1949) - 10 million


And those are only the big ones. They don't include the lesser mass murdering governments. Ten regimes, between 1900-1987, murdered 1,000,000 people or more, but less than 10,000,000.

Is your world so black and white that you can only recognize some kind of binary opinion of government - good or bad?

A) Is this more people than were killed by disease in the 20th century?

B) Nope.

A) Is this more people than were killed by disease in the 20th century?

B) Nope.

Hah okay, so 20th century governments wasn't as lethal as all the diseases in the world.

Must not be so bad then! ;) YAY GOVERNMENT, I LOVE YOU.

Hah okay, so 20th century governments wasn't as lethal as all the diseases in the world.

Must not be so bad then! ;) YAY GOVERNMENT, I LOVE YOU.


Honest and attentive readers will note that the only thing I said about genocidal government was that it was the exception rather than the rule.

Some of the above posters seem to have a penchant for inventing hobgoblins.

Is this more people than were killed by disease in the 20th century?

So is this your logic:

All people die.
More people die of natural causes than die from murder,
Therefore, murder is acceptible.
Since murder is acceptible, mass murder is nothing to get too worked up about.

Interesting. Do you think it would work in court?

So is this your logic:

All people die.
More people die of natural causes than die from murder,
Therefore, murder is acceptible.

Interesting. Do you think it would work in court?


Stop flaming me with this garbage and pay attention.

its called natral slection only the strong surivive i think we should fight more wars to many stupied people on our highways. It dont matter how they die just that they do for the good of socieity. Like the cheta couldnt run so fast if its prey didnt we keep geting faster. Or in our case we keep getting smarter the only preditor and prey of man is another man and the smarter one wins.

Honest and attentive readers will note that the only thing I said about genocidal government was that it was the exception rather than the rule.


So what's with the comparison to disease? Cuz that kinda very seems like you're trying to show that since something (disease) is more lethal than those 'exceptions,' those exceptions aren't all that bad, or are irrelevant, or are otherwise easily dismissed.


Some of the above posters seem to have a penchant for inventing hobgoblins.

I do believe the first hobglin in this line of thinking was your rant on "semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy."

Stop fwaming me with this garbage or I'll report you. -sniff-:(

Then what is your point? Because to honest and attentive readers it appears that you are excusing government mass murder under that pretext that government is neccessary.

The other killers of man desise is to sort out the weak only the ones with strong immune systems surivive.

So what's with the comparison to disease? Cuz that kinda very seems like you're trying to show that since something (disease) is more lethal than those 'exceptions,' those exceptions aren't all that bad, or are irrelevant, or are otherwise easily dismissed.



I do believe the first hobglin in this line of thinking was your rant on "semi-coherant anarcho-crybabyist fantasy."


A) Never said anything about genocide being 'not all the bad,' only ever addressed my point that it was the exception, not the rule.

B) The thread was by a very new poster and it reeked of the sort of thing "anarchists" like to muck the forum up with. I misapprehended and made that clear. No more hobgoblins, OK?

Then what is your point? Because to honest and attentive readers it appears that you are excusing government mass murder under that pretext that government is neccessary.


Hardly.

There has been a lot of noise about "excusing government mass murder," but no excusing of government mass murder.

Where is the excusing of government mass murder?

A) Never said anything about genocide being 'not all the bad,' only ever addressed my point that it was the exception, not the rule.

B) The thread was by a very new poster and it reeked of the sort of thing "anarchists" like to muck the forum up with. I misapprehended and made that clear. No more hobgoblins, OK?


Genocide isnt bad at all infact its good for society.

A) Never said anything about genocide being 'not all the bad,' only ever addressed my point that it was the exception, not the rule.


...in what way does comparing the numbers of dead due directly to governments, with the numbers of dead due to disease, have anything to do with whether murderous governments are exceptional at all?

They could simply be not as competent as disease.


B) The thread was by a very new poster and it reeked of the sort of thing "anarchists" like to muck the forum up with. I misapprehended and made that clear. No more hobgoblins, OK?

K

Hardly.

There has been a lot of noise about "excusing government mass murder," but no excusing of government mass murder.

Where is the excusing of government mass murder?

The excuse they get in your way and your more powerful than them so if they oppose you they die. Makes perfect sence.

...in what way does comparing the numbers of dead due directly to governments, with the numbers of dead due to disease, have anything to do with whether murderous governments are exceptional at all?

They could simply be not as competent as disease.



K


I dont think it's due to competence, I think it's due to the fact that while genocide is terrible - probably the most terrible thing in the world - it is blessedly rare in the long-run.

Perspective is important, and even in the genocide-riddled 20th century the institution of government managed to save and create more lives than it destroyed.

I dont think it's due to competence, I think it's due to the fact that while genocide is terrible - probably the most terrible thing in the world - it is blessedly rare in the long-run.

Not rare enough.

But I'm still stuck on this point where genocide's overall lethality compared to disease has to do with the frequency of genocide. It doesn't - it's like comparing the number of murders with, well, those who die of heart disease, and then saying the discrepancy is because murder is rare. Even though it happens every day!

Now, genocide may not happen every day, but its frequency is still very alarming all the same. And it makes me seriously consider your assertion about government being the best invention of mankind. (I think agriculture tops that one for example.)


Perspective is important, and even in the genocide-riddled 20th century the institution of government managed to save and create more lives than it destroyed.

Or is it just people breed too fast to have a negative birth rate due to government? I mean, more people were born then were killed in all wars and government and crime... but that doesn't make government, crime or wars any better.

I don't think government should get credit for 'creating' lives in any case, unless we're talking about state sponsored in vitro fertilization.

Hardly.

There has been a lot of noise about "excusing government mass murder," but no excusing of government mass murder.

Where is the excusing of government mass murder?

I posted a cogent and clearly stated thread topic about authoritarian/totalitarian governments being a greater threat to people than war, contrary to the general perception of many people. My point, also stated, is that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," therefore the best defense against murder by government is democracy. Furthermore, death by government is not rare, but rather, was more likely in the 20th century than at any other time in human history.

You, apparently "inventing hobgoblins," responded that this observation was "semi-coherent anarcho-crybabyist fantasy," stating that government was humanity's greatest invention, which implied a defense of demicide (murder by government). You went on to post a question about the number of deaths from disease, which only has relevance if you intent to point out more people die from disease than demicide, therefore demicide is excusable. If that was not your point, then pray tell, what was it? Death by disease has nothing to do with this topic.

Not rare enough.

But I'm still stuck on this point where genocide's overall lethality compared to disease has to do with the frequency of genocide. It doesn't - it's like comparing the number of murders with, well, those who die of heart disease, and then saying the discrepancy is because murder is rare. Even though it happens every day!

Now, genocide may not happen every day, but its frequency is still very alarming all the same. And it makes me seriously consider your assertion about government being the best invention of mankind. (I think agriculture tops that one for example.)


Or is it just people breed too fast to have a negative birth rate due to government? I mean, more people were born then were killed in all wars and government and crime... but that doesn't make government, crime or wars any better.

I don't think government should get credit for 'creating' lives in any case, unless we're talking about state sponsored in vitro fertilization.

A) Murder IS rare! Your chances of getting murdered are miniscule compared to your chances of dying of heart disease.

Murder may happen "every day," but an enormous ammount of things happen much more often every day.

B) Government is directly responsible for creating lives by setting up stable societies with good health care, which decreases infant mortality and increases the population.

I posted a cogent and clearly stated thread topic about authoritarian/totalitarian governments being a greater threat to people than war, contrary to the general perception of many people. My point, also stated, is that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," therefore the best defense against murder by government is democracy. Furthermore, death by government is not rare, but rather, was more likely in the 20th century than at any other time in human history.

You, apparently "inventing hobgoblins," responded that this observation was "semi-coherent anarcho-crybabyist fantasy," stating that government was humanity's greatest invention, which implied a defense of demicide (murder by government). You went on to post a question about the number of deaths from disease, which only has relevance if you intent to point out more people die from disease than demicide, therefore demicide is excusable. If that was not your point, then pray tell, what was it? Death by disease has nothing to do with this topic.



A) Already explained above, either ignored or not read.

B) You rely far too heavily on false dichotomies and jump far too often to ridiculous conclusions.

Disease kills more people than genocide => genocide is rare.

Nothing more, nothing less.

A lot of noise about "excusing mass murder," but no excusing of mass murder.

We have heard the din, but where is the substance?

A) Murder IS rare! Your chances of getting murder are miniscule compared to your chances of dying of heart disease.

But that's the risk of dying, not the frequency at which either occurs. Murders do occur each and every day without stop.

And of course the risk of dying to either one depends a lot on one's lifestyle and environment. Like, a young black male is more likely to die of murder than heart disease. If he manages to survive to become an old black male, well, maybe that changes.


B) Government is directly responsible for creating lives by setting up stable societies with good health care, which decreases infant mortality and increases the population.

Does government "set up societies," or do societies set up government?

When my sister helps someone survive (she works in medical profession) I don't attribute her efforts to "government" either. I think you're giving the titular head of states far too much credit while ignoring the very real dangers they pose.

A)
Disease kills more people than genocide => genocide is rare.



You are not reading carefully. We are not talking about genocide - the killing of national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This topic is about democide - the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Your use of the term rare, is of course, a relative one. Rare compared to what? The total death rate of humans? Or the occurance of democide in the past?

Let me ask you, do you consider war rare? This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international.

Again, your constant harping on a comparison between the deaths caused by disease and the murder of nearly 120 million people (for comparison, almost the entire population of Japan) by their government, seems to imply some sort of rationalization for mass murder.

Why else to you keep making this comparison?

And too many people forget that Hitler actually relaxed gun laws in Germany from what they had been previously under the Weimar Government.

In conclusion, governments kill more people because they last longer than wars. If looked on a deaths/time scale, wars kill more people. Which one is worse, I don't know. Depends, I suppose.

I must have forgotten.

Hitler’s Control
The lessons of Nazi history.

By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths



his week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).




Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people. Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe's number-two man (who died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe's terrorist gangs, who nicknamed himself "Hitler." One of the things that Robert Mugabe, "Hitler" Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their strong and effective programs of gun control.

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military — the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new "gun control" policy changed who had the guns there: "And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing."

— Richard Griffiths is a doctor of psychology with research interest in gun issues. Dave Kopel is a NRO contributing editor.

I heard somewhere that San Fransisco has already taken steps to do this. Not sure how true it is, though it doesn't surprise me.

Yup. And it was struck down by the most flaming liberal SC in America, the 9nth :eek:. Mad props to the NRA on that one.:p

It wasn't my intent to get off on a discussion of the issues with gun regulation. The real answer to demicide, or murder by government, is democracy.

The more democratic a society, the less likely its government will kill its people. The greatest mass murders - Stalin, Mao, Hitler - all were totalitarian, and popular, rulers.

And yet some people want to eradicate civilian ownership of small arms, leaving the gov't with the guns. Stupid, at the least.
Let's forget the fact that the people with small arms are the most likely to support most any government action.

War, real and imagined, is a favorite discussion topic for many on this message board. However, few people realize that as horrible as war has become in the 20th and 21st centuries it is actually governments that are the greatest threat to their citizens. Especially totalitarian governments.

In the 20th century the total death count from war was 35.6 million people.

Pretty terrible.

Yet, more terrible has been the mass murder carried out by governments. Demicide, or murder by one's own government, accounted for almost 120 million deaths.

That makes the 20th century the bloodiest century in human history.


WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER
By R.J. Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

Let's forget the fact that the people with small arms are the most likely to support most any government action.

People with small arms are most likely conservative, and there is a partly conservative President in the office right now. Usually, no, we don't.

The issue of guns has no bearing on this particular topic.

The issue of guns has no bearing on this particular topic.


Nothing bears on the topic because it is tautology.

If your point is "democracies dont massacre their own populations," something immediately, obviously apparent to everyone, you will be met with "and...?"

This "and...?" is why this thread can't remain "on topic."

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]War, real and imagined, is a favorite discussion topic for many on this message board. However, few people realize that as horrible as war has become in the 20th and 21st centuries it is actually governments that are the greatest threat to their citizens. Especially totalitarian governments.

In the 20th century the total death count from war was 35.6 million people.

I can't believe that someone actually wrote this. Wars are caused by governments. War deaths = government deaths.

Britain's Imperial War Museum lists the number dead from wars in the 20th century at about 102,000,000.

And yet some people want to eradicate civilian ownership of small arms, leaving the gov't with the guns. Stupid, at the least.
I am amused how conservatives love to pretend that the military is private sector, rather than just another clunky government bureaucracy.

I must have forgotten.
Not forgotten, you just swallowed whatever propaganda you've been told without questioning.

If you have a look at your article, it talks about how they took away weapons from the enemies of the regime. So much is true - but gun laws for the general population were not particularly harsh. In other words, the Hitler & Guns thing is Godwinned.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557183

I can't believe that someone actually wrote this. Wars are caused by governments. War deaths = government deaths.

Britain's Imperial War Museum lists the number dead from wars in the 20th century at about 102,000,000.



No one is claiming that governments are not responsible for war. I would think that it is quite obvious governments take their people into war. The point of this thread is to discuss the murder by governments of their own people, which is often overlooked by many people, yet totals more than those killed in wars.

There is another connection between war and democide (killing of people by their government) in that countries that have totalitarian/authoritarian governments are both more likely to murder their own citizens AND engage in foreign wars. Democracies,on the other hand, are less likely to murder their own people and almost never (I would say never) go to war against other democracies.

Democracy seems to be the cure for both war and democide.

As to the number of war dead, there may be other figures. My data comes from a Wall Street Journal article by professor R.J. Rummel, whose area of study has been the causes and conditions of collective violence and war.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM