Comment: Can you possibly be

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: We're not in the 20th (see in situ)

Can you possibly be

any more intellectually dishonest?

Your statements:

"He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other[3] (see Democratic peace theory). -wiki"

"Democide wasn't the leading cause of death in the other 150 countries, which is why the guy who coined democide didn't draw any conclusions about government as such."

In order to make any comparison between governments he established as fact democide is the leading cause of unnatural death. You do realize how silly your comment is?

You argue he did not draw any conclusion about government as such. Correct, he established democide is the leading cause of unnatural death as a VALID FACTUAL PREMISE IN ORDER TO DRAW A CONCLUSION comparing governments.

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.<- this premise is what turns any conclusion into an ethical statement because unnatural death is associated with evil. Without this premise there can be no claim less democide is more ethical if government is a necessary evil because if evil is necessary it doesn't matter how much is required if it is for a greater good. In other words a little or lot of democide means nothing ethically if democide is for a greater good. (using your words here to point out how blaring the intellectual dishonesty is)

Premise: Governments A, B, and C have less democide than Governments D, E, and F.

Premise: Governments A, B, and C are type X whereas Governments D, E, and F are type Y.

Conclusion: Type X has less unnatural death than type Y or type X is better than type Y or type X is morally superior to type Y.

What you are trying to do is take an established fact:

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.

And arbitrarily turn it into this:

Premise: Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Voluntary Society or whatever term you want to use is the leading cause of unnatural death.

Without any evidence, observation, or historic parallels comprising any data that can be compared to democide data.

Finally, if one wanted to expand the premises in any of those countries with less democide it can be done by including a comparison of incarceration rates, or other forms of persecution:

Premise: Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C have less democide than Governments D, E, and F.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C are type X whereas Governments D, E, and F are type Y.
Premise: Governments A, B, and C have ______ incarceration than Governments D, E, and F. (making any adjustment to the premise as dictated by data)

Conclusion: Type X has less democide and ______ incarceration than type Y. Both conditions, democide and incarceration, not leading to a long and happy life and the Socratic method demands removing any hypothesis with contradictions.

P.S. For shits and giggles while the heralds of truth are busy sounding trumpets over a battlefield comprised of your dead argument corpses:

What is the logic of "type X has less unnatural death than type Y or type X is better than type Y or type X is morally superior to type Y."

It is a NAND statement Q = NOT ( A AND B ).

Conclusion = NOT ( More democide AND Less democide ).

Huh ... where have we heard that before? Oh I know, my evictionism thread:

http://www.dailypaul.com/317712/evictionism