The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Which BILL3 user wrote this post?

(See in situ)

Which BILL3 user wrote this post?

I am guessing the fellow that regularly capitalizes.

In any case, whichever one of you it is, I've said this on more than one occasion, but I guess the other users that also use this account - which I've noticed 3 thus far - don't read each others interactions that thoroughly. So, I'll say it again.

The imperfectibility of man lends itself better to a stateless society than it does to one with a state. Why would someone think it a good idea to give a group of corruptible men a monopoly on force to use against an entire population?

You 3 BILL3 users say how people are so violent yet you fail to consider that murder by government was the leading unnatural cause of death in the 20th Century - upwards of 300,000,000 people (ie equal to the entire population of the United States).

Let's do a gedankenexperiment. First of all, it has already been demonstrated above that large governments are very deadly. Suppose the US federal government is abolished. In that case, there is some potential that the States may fight amongst each other. However, rather than millions, probably only a few thousand would die. Now, suppose the State governments are abolished. Then, the counties may fight amongst each other leading to probably a few hundred deaths. Finally, let's abolish the county and city governments. Here only individuals and small groups of individuals will fight amongst each other. People would die, but not on the scale of wars between modern nations. It should be a rather simple concept to understand that if the largest source of murder is done away with that the world will become safer.

The Early American West has been sensationalized by Hollywood to be a very violent place. However, that wasn't the case. Cattle thieves are much less likely to steal when they may get lynched. Truth be told, the only real reason for people to shy away from anarchism is because punishments become more harsh because people take it upon themselves to protect their property. Besides, in modern times, if your ass is on the line, the cops are just five minutes away. The cops provide an illusion of protection that puts people at an unnecessary risk. Very few people these days are equipped to defend themselves because of that illusion.

At one time, people thought kings were absolutely necessary for stability, just as you three do about the state. Up until Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, even many of the "founders" only wanted reconciliation with George III and thought it a silly idea to be without his rule. You three are no different.

The Jewish people requested to be ruled by a king twice. I hope the American people don't do the same with a "limited" government.