Our Friend, The State
This website is dedicated to the mass-murder that has been committed by The State. Via democide and genocide, 174,000,000 people have been murdered by States in the 20th century, with no end in sight; that's more than 4 times the number of people murdered by war alone, which is also mortifyingly high (36,000,000). All of the people murdered by the State, head to toe, would encircle the earth four times over again, in a "megatomb" or "ring of tears".
There are other, equally mortifying, ways in which to visualize the State's murder. If all of the water or blood in the 174,000,000 people murdered by State-democide in the 20th century were to flow over the American Niagra Falls, it would take 10.4 hours for all of the water and 42.5 minutes for the blood.
Including wars and democide, that's 210,000,000 people murdered by States in 100 years. On average, that amounts to 2,100,000 people murdered a year by States, or some 5,700 people murdered each day. The real numbers are much more mortifying, since State-mandated death took place in concentrated clusters.
To me, this shows how crazy it is for anyone to support a State. Can anyone in their right mind really think that the State comes anywhere near close to saving 2,100,000 lives a year? Or that these lives would not exist without the State? The State is a perpetual Black Plague of Death. This is how States view people: as expendable.
Also note that the US is listed as one of the agents of democide: "in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told."
The methods Rummel used to estimate democide can be read about in ESTIMATING DEMOCIDE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES.
Comments (10)
What does david mean by murder? Is any death at the hands of sgents of the state counted as a murder, for instance an inmate who is executed? I would like some specifics please.
Anyway, it's interesting to note that the non-initiation of force principle prevents those of us who are so upset about all that murder from doing to anything to rescue the people who are dying at the hands of governments all over the world -- at least according to some libertarians anyway.
Published: June 30, 2004 5:49 AM
Excuse me, Mr. Bomb, but I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that any libertarian has taken a stance such as you allege -- "that the non-initiation of force principle prevents those of us who are so upset about all that murder from doing to anything to rescue the people who are dying at the hands of governments all over the world ".
What those of us who believe in the non-initiation of force is that having a government intervene to "protect" victims of government is like, well, intercourse for chastity.
NO ONE suggests that you, and others who are appalled at the slaughter of innocents by the state, must not act. Only that one must not act by using the initiation of force, ie, the state.
Adopting the form and manner of the enemy grants them victory at the outset.
Shirley Knott
Published: June 30, 2004 7:20 AM
There we go again...
Published: June 30, 2004 11:08 AM
As a morbid curiousity, I wonder if anyone has set out to figure out how many people have been murdered by the State or otherwise died because the State in the 20th century. Democide and war are just the tip of the ice-burg when you start to talk about how many people have been murdered by State or died because of States. There's also those who die from needing kidney transplants, the mass-starvation occuring because of Statist policies against private property rights, those who die because life-saving treatments are banned by the State, those who have died from malaria because States criminalized DDT, those who have died because of drugs not developed due to State-regulations, those who have died due to road-socialism (traffic jams are a socialistic shortage of supply), and on and on.
I would bet that many of the causes of death listed on the following graph are ultimately the responsibility of States:
http://tinyurl.com/yw3wb
Published: June 30, 2004 11:18 AM
An excellent work. It definitely documents the danger of a powerful state. (Too bad we don't have anything resembling an Athenian democracy.) One possible criticism is that it may be difficult to unambiguously classify a regime as democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian.
Published: June 30, 2004 5:47 PM
"Too bad we don't have anything resembling an Athenian democracy."
Didn't Aristotle posit that 20,000 was largest practical population for a nation-state? It may well be that above that, any form of democracy deteriorates into factional mob rule.
Just imagine, though, what the world would be like with 100,000 free city-states. Absolute state power would be non-existant. Cities would compete for citizens. Culture would flourish.
Published: July 1, 2004 12:07 AM
I'm sorry, but at the risk of not being civil, this is the most idiotic thing I have seen on the web in quite awhile.
If governments have killed so many people in the 20th century, just how many people does the author of this piece believe would have murdered each other in the last century if all mankind lived under utter anarchy?
I will submit that if anarchy prevailed, utterance of thoughts such as the those in the article or in this reply would be sufficient to possibly increment the scoreboard by one or even more. Man is after all a sinner. The good understanding of humanity reflected in the old scriptural principal that governments (however poorly they succeed!) are ordained among men by God to restrain evil behavior should be evident after all these millenia.
I wish someone would undertake a good study of the philosophical presuppositions about the nature of man and the world which seem to underlay much Austrian economic thought. Whether they reflect the mindset of the Enlightenment or Rationalism or Humanism I am not skilled to determine, but they definitely at times seem to not relate well to a Judao-Christian moral and ethical framework!
Published: July 6, 2004 6:25 PM
Actually, Douglas,
I know that many Austrians are, in fact, Christians (many Catholic Christians). Among those that claim Christianity are numbered: Shawn Ritenour, Jeffrey Herbener, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Tucker, Guido Hulsmann, and Bob Murphy. That's just to name a few off the top of my head. I number myself in the Christian Austrian anarchocapitalist camp as well, and in fact believe that anarchocapitalism finds its strongest ground in Christianity.
So, let's examine, then, the sinfulness of man in terms of government.
What is government (more properly the State)? Is it anything more than the legitimization of the power of one man to use force on another? Of course not. That is its very nature. But, who runs government? Man does. So, what we are really saying when we advocate government is that sinful man must have power over other sinful men. How can this logically result in anything except oppression? It can't. Oppression is the necessary result of government if man is sinful. And, indeed, he is, and the necessary result does follow in every government, given time.
So, what does the Bible say about government? Let's look at some broad categories:
Prior to the Egyptian captivity, the People of God were ruled by a tribal patriarchy, as far as can be determined. Such is not a "government" in the modern sense. It has no power to tax, specifically, and one is free to leave the family property if one so desires. (Hagar and Ishmael fled, for example).
Nothing about Egyptian captivity should give a reader a positive impression of government. Pharaoh's government enslaved God's People, and God helped them escape.
Under Moses, a human government did not exist. God provided the law, and Moses, the man of God, administered that law through delegates. A theocracy is far from any modern workable form of government.
Under the Judges, there was no central government over Israel. When things got bad, God called up a leader that fixed them, and things went back to the theocratic "rule", which was far from a governmental one.
Samuel was the final judge, and the people asked him for a King. What did God say regarding this change to human goverment? "They have rejected me as their king." (1 Sam. 8:7) This does two things: 1) it establishes that rule of Israel to that time was not human, but divine. 2) it establishes that human government was opposed to divine rule. What does Samuel do? Does he say "Okay, guys, fine"? Not quite. Instead, he warns about the great evils that the King will do. The people insisted, and as God often does, he allowed them to indulge in this sin.
Now, I could go through the entire list of kings over Israel and Judah. But, one thing is clear: each of them abused their power at some point. Even David "a man after God's own heart" used his power to commit adultery with Bathsheba and kill her husband. That was the example set by Israel's best king. Moses was kept out of the Promised Land for hitting a rock with his staff, a far cry from the murder that David committed to cover up his own sin.
Skip now to Jesus's time. What did the government consist of? 2 major bodies: the heavily corrupt Sanhedrin that pushed for Christ's crucifixion, and the Roman oppressors who condemned Him. One can hardly advocate these organizations, though one can give the rule of prudence to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's".
What about Paul's statement in Romans you refer to? Romans 13:4b states "[The authority] is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer." Who was Paul referring to? That's right, the tyrant Nero. What did Nero do? That's right, he persecuted Christians. So, if we take this in the broad sense, God inspired Paul to write that Christians being martyred was good. I have a hard time buying that, personally.
So, what then did Paul mean? Well, let's stop the prooftexting and look at the larger context. What is the broader context? Look at 12:21-13:1. "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established..." Why would Paul put things in this context? Could it be that Paul was saying that, despite the fact that the persecution of Nero was evil, that Christians should not respond in like-kind by rebelling? To me, that appears to be the best answer.
So, as a Christian, how can I be an anarchocapitalist? Well, here's how I proceed:
1) Disobedience of even the most oppressive government is wrong, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. If government tells me not to smoke pot, I won't, even if I think the law is unjust.
2) Obedience does not imply advocacy. Just because I refuse to rebel against the law doesn't mean I think it's okay.
I keep these two very simple principles in mind, and I think it makes sense. So, what are the benefits to anarchy from a Christian perspective?
1) Anarchy doesn't mean total chaos, even if man is sinful. Fact is, God provides man with a conscience that automatically restrains many evil acts. The run of the mill bad person wouldn't go out on a killing spree, would they? Some would, but of course, some do even with government!
2) The family is reestablished as the basis for rule, order, and provision. In Democracy: the God the Failed, Hoppe argues very well that government policies destroy family bonds. And he's right.
3) Sin is made open. Most conservatives shudder at this idea. But, think about it. What is hidden sin? Isn't it just hypocrisy? That's what morals legislation does. It forces people to be hypocrites in such a way that sin never gets dealt with. Sin being obvious gives the church the opportunity to step in as the earthly organization that proclaims the divine answer to the problem of sin: forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.
4) The church is reestablished as caretaker of the needy. Face it, the American church does squat for the poor in America. You know why? Because the government does it all! The church is charged with caring for the orphans and widows, and government has stolen that responsibility from the People of God. In addition to allowing the church to reclaim its rightful duty, the church also claims a major means of evangelism. Sharing God's love in terms of practical things is a great witness for the church.
These points are ones that Christians need to seriously consider before they run out advocating every piece of legislation against gay marriage and for welfare.
Published: July 6, 2004 7:57 PM
Good thoughtful post Lucas. Thanks. But.
While I think we agree than governments can and will do awful things, and usually do a pretty poor job at the arguably reasonable things they do, the problem remains.
First, in the good old Old testament days, the condemnation of scripture on how things were in the days of the judges is terse and biting: "...every man did what was right in his own eyes."
The verse by Paul is not a proof text, it is a didactic teaching passage. Paul talks a lot about obeying the legal authorities, and he was not naive about their shortcomings. Faced with people who wanted his blood, and an unjust persecution by the local authorities, he even appealed to Caesar.
And finally, Jesus, remember Jesus? "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and unto God that which belongs to God. Not a prooftext, just a life example of doing what was right.
Would less government now, here, be better? Sure. Is it profitable to think, to talk, to even wonder how man would live without government? Sure.
Men exist in social organisations, whether they be ancient Athenians or contemporary Americans. They tend to organize themselves into orderly, increasingly complex ways. I would submit that what makes those social orderings good or bad is not just the extent or complexity of the ordering, but rather how closely the underlying values of the society, as reflected in the government among other things. match man's real nature, as a fallen bearer of the image of God.
Published: July 7, 2004 8:33 AM
Doug, good comments that make me think, but...
"...every man did what was right in his own eyes." As opposed to what? Clearly, it didn't mean as opposed to what was right in the eyes of human government officials. Such a concept had not yet been introduced. Rather, every man did what was right in his own eyes as opposed to what was right in the eyes of God. This is the sin that brings condemnation: doing your own thing instead of God's thing.
Regarding Paul, you bring up an interesting point: he appealed to Caesar. What was his purpose in doing so? It seems to me that it was Paul's purpose in everything after his calling: reaching the lost. Paul didn't hope for some great justice to be done. Rather, he knew that reaching the unsaved in Rome would be a powerful witness. So, that was what he did.
As far as "Caesar's to Caesar, and God's to God" (Lucas paraphrase), Jesus leaves an interesting open question: What is Caesar's?
While I hate to bring up the example, because it's so cliche, yet it has become cliche because it is useful. What about the truly evil government officials? What about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Are we going to say that slaughtering millions of innocent people by these tyrants was ordained by God, and simply "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? God never says anywhere that whatever someone claims is theirs. So, just because government claims to have the right to tax us through the nose, conscript us, or what have you, doesn't mean it is something that we owe them. (Side note: In the first 300 years of Christianity, several Christians were martyred for an interesting reason: they refused conscription. Apparently, early Christians didn't see that military service was something that was owed to the government.)
Man is a social animal. With that, I agree. God is love, and created man in his image: as a being made to love. This love is aimed at both God and other men (pursuant to the 2 great commandments, restated by Christ, on which all the Law and the Prophets hang). Society is therefore natural to man. However, it is a grave error to believe that society requires the coercive arm of government. Coercion turns man against man, as one party is always the oppressor and the other oppressed where coercion occurs. This is not a "social" behavior, rather it is destructive to fellowship and community.
If we truly want to build social institutions that take into account man's nature as a bearer of the fallen image of God, then we must realize: man cannot be trusted to have coercive power over other men.
In close, I'll just reiterate how I approach government. I never advocate its violent overthrow. We should obey government out of prudence and conscience (as Paul advocates). But, nothing in Scripture says that government, though it may have a divine purpose (that it tends to fail at or at least overstep), is necessary. I'll also add a more radical view that I haven't brought up before: I don't think Christians should be government officials. As I have claimed, government is, by nature, oppressive, and when you read Scripture it is clear that the church is always supposed to be the oppressed, not the oppressor. Just a side note.
Published: July 7, 2004 9:25 AM