Comment: RE: Amended Fact Claim

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Amended fact claim: Democide (see in situ)

RE: Amended Fact Claim

RE: False.

Untrue statement.

"According to Rummel, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.[5][6]"

Source 5:


RE: Over 15,000 people died from auto accidents in 2010 in the United States. How many Americans were murdered by the US government outside of wars (none anyway, but that's the definition of democide).

That is argumentation based on the way BILL3's brain works. It has no bearing on democide or the statistics of democide. You can argue which form of the leading cause of unnatural death is less harmful until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.

RE: Rummel is the one you're citing and the one who coined the term democide with this definition. Are you suggesting he chose limited government over anarchy because he thinks anarchy / no government would have fewer political killings, but prefers a moderate level of political killings? No, he isn't an anarchist presumably because he's considered the consequences likely on a political power vacuum to be a setting of warring factions organized in unlimited or totalitarian power structures, as actual political science would predict and history has shown.

All that do I think what Rummel thinks non-sense is just that, non-sense. It has no place in any Socratic debate because what one thinks another thinks has no merit or bearing on any truth.

RE: Democide is not the leading cause of unnatural deaths in America or Europe or even most countries in general.

Another irrelevant argument that does not change the fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death. You can not argue the American empire is immune to totalitarianism. Nor can you claim because one country is less offending than another country democide is not the leading cause of unnatural death. How many people are imprisoned for victimless crime in the United States? Is imprisonment for victimless crime a contradiction to a long and happy life? Of course it is. Don't get too wet trying to use an irrelevant argument to disprove democide when further analysis of centi-kilo murderers like the United States will show less murder is offset by incarceration.

RE: There is no way to calculate

You better come up with a theory because no hypothesis can be eliminated using the Socratic method based on any premise which is impossible to form. Your problem is not my problem.

RE: The reason the burden is on you

I have no burden of proof when it is a fact the only real check on power is competition. All human devised schemes to limit power are artificial.

RE: in the absence a compelling case

In the absence of any compelling case one relies on observation. Does observation confirm or deny most people at any given time are engaged in acts of democide? Does observation confirm or deny most people at any given time are engaged in acts of gang warfare? Does observation confirm or deny at any given time most people are engaged in acts of violence? Does history confirm or deny at any given time most violence was committed by individual actors or government actors?

Your presumptions about causes of death are wholly unreasonable based on democide data, history, and observation.

As there has been no objection presented to falsify Fact #1 as restated and Fact #2 still stands unchallenged, I rest my case both facts utterly destroy any conclusion of government based on the Socratic method by eliminating any hypothesis containing contradictions. Any such contradiction would hinder or prevent a long and happy life.