: It says basically that the more power a government has the more likely it seems to result in mass murder.LARS: Unchecked power is likely to result in disaster wherever it is found- governments, individuals or companies. Or any combination of these.
: : and b) more importantly, private individuals, comnpanies and the capitalist economic system have been significant killers as well, not just governments.
: I would need to see research of comparable quality here. Most killer companies do so with the explicit / implicit support of the state (both home state and location state)
LARS: SO does the support of the state absolve such companies? I think not BOTH parties are equally guilty, in fact more moral blame could be attributed to the company in many cases, for it is they who are actively attempting to produce somethiong, the government is merely supplying the means.
: : It is the econpomic system that deprives them of the food and medicine they need.
: What you must basically say here is that mankind be damned for their uncaring ways - because in capitalism it would be as possibl, more even considering the rapid expansions of wealth, for people to privately hand over 20% of their take home pay to 'good causes' and still have comfortable lives. Blaming a systm for their choices is to refuse facing the reasons people dont help (remember reasons are not causes)
LARS: People's failure to hand over money to those in need counts as an omission and generally, as a matter of convention when a person fails to do something it is not considered to be a cause of what follows. But just because it is a convention, does not mean that we cannot find certain situations where reason demands that justice be done. ie where an omission can act as a cause.
: And how do they get away with it? They have government in their pockets (esp columbia) and other states close borders, national boundaries being part of the prob.
LARS: So, this is no reason to do away with government. The ultimate guilt here lies with the shopkeepers, the governments being mere accessories. You think it would be better if ther was no government regualtion? That would just mean more people trying to push each other around. More violence, more death.
Government is a sign of civilised society. It is supposed to mediate between the citizens, to allow for a peaceful and beneficial coexistence. That it does not do this at present is no reason to condemn government outright. The remedy lies in fixing the holes in the roof, not whipping up a tornado to get rid of the house.
But really Gee, i thgink i must have misunderstood you, for assuredly NOBODY would ever assert that we do not need governemnt regualtion of business. Ever since there has been business there has been a need of regualtion. That is plain as grass is green.
So let me see do you think:
1) That there should be no government regulation of companies
2) That there should be no governmental ownership of companies
Only the second of these is remotely tenable and i trust i am gravely mistaken in thinking (from my somewhat rushed perusal) that you hold any faith in the first (god help us if you do).
