Democide: The Inevitable End Of Statism

Democide: The Inevitable End Of Statism

Begging for gun control is analogous to advocating for the mass murder of peaceful people.
56
views

In part one of this series, I provided a basic introduction to the “anarchist” and “voluntaryist” ideologies. Now that the foundation has been laid, I will examine the inevitable end of statism, otherwise known as democide. In subsequent articles, I will provide an in-depth anarchist perspective on subjects mentioned below and also things like war, taxation, and college.

Let’s get started.

Statism defined

Depending on what source you refer to, the definition can vary, but only in the sense of “politeness.” The context more or less remains identical.

Political scientists define it as, “...the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.”

Similarly, the Ayn Rand Lexicon provides a less polite definition.

“The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state — to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation — and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

To put it more simply, statism is the belief that the government is the indisputable authority to dictate what is legal and what is illegal through its monopoly on the law, thereby controlling parts of (or all) facets of its citizens’ lives.

Democide

I mention democide in a lot of articles I write for Liberty Under Attack because of the sheer horror the word exudes. I don’t think any better evidence for the necessity of a truly freed market and property rights is currently available.

That said, even without knowing the definition, it sounds like a scary word, right?

It is, and rightfully so.

Democide is a term coined by political scientist, R.J. Rummel, and can be defined as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.”

Rummel’s statistical examination provides some daunting results. In the 20th century alone, governments across the world were responsible for the deaths of ~262 million of their own citizenry, and that is specifically excluding war casualties.

If said casualties of war were included in this number, it would rise exponentially.

Some may be saying, “But that can’t happen here in America, the ‘land of the free.'” That is incorrect, as it happens on a daily basis. In this year of 2016 alone, police officers have already killed more than 564 Americans. For a comparison, in 2013, Iceland police officers killed the first person in the country’s history, and mourned the loss of the criminal.

Now that democide has been explained, let’s take a look at the political ideologies of the governments who committed the most atrocious examples.

How many of those regimes were strict adherents to the free market? Not a single one of the 13 listed above; their ideologies were, without exception, collectivistic in some manner, given that their economic systems were all centrally planned, albeit in different flavors of course.

That said, how can the irrational fear of a free market (simply the exclusive ownership of your person and property) supersede the terror caused by governments, which has been empirically demonstrated throughout history, with democide being only the most severe example?

(Note: I will write an article exclusively focused on the free market in the coming months.)

Conclusion

Democide is the inevitable end of statism and is arrived at by the complete confiscation of firearms, which are the most effective means of self-defense against a tyrannical government. In most cases, this is not done in one fell swoop, but rather through incremental bureaucratic red tape and the outright banning of certain firearms, such as “machine guns” (as we have seen here).

This is why gun ownership is such an important aspect of American culture. It is no exaggeration to say that firearms owners are the only real reason why the United States federal government has been rather hesitant to roll out its more despotic programs of death and destruction. The only way Americans could ever be conquered is not initially with brute force, but, rather, through psychological conditioning from an early age to believe that the greatest sin is to disobey perceived “authority,” no matter how insane and bogus its alleged “legitimacy” truly is.

Even if critics of anarchy are correct, the “chaos” that would result from an actually free market would not even be relatively close to the “chaos” the State inevitably brings with it, which is the case today.

There is no conceivable way individuals, or even a private group of people, could reap this much damage without the State. This level of “chaos” requires taxation (theft) and the inflation of the dollar (it costs a lot to fund a war), to funding mechanisms not available to even the worst multinational corporations. Speaking of fascism, look no further than what the United States government gives to the military industrial complex, especially in regards to no-bid contracts.

Leviathan also requires a complete disregard for morals, ethics and basic human decency.

If you thought the recent Orlando shooting was bad, democide should put things into perspective. Further gun control is not the answer unless you’re a sycophant of the State who wishes to “watch the world burn.” Rather, the answer is to allow all individuals to acquire the most effective, most readily available means of self-defense, without having to do so as a victimless crime.

Those with malicious intent will always find a way to impose their will onto peaceful people. The cops will show up after you’re dead, and the State will inevitably unleash its wrath onto its populace if the natural right to self-defense is stripped. “To serve and protect” means their own vested special interests, and has nothing to do with your property or liberty, as is evidenced by their own court case precedent.

Consider the implications of this quote by Gustave de Molinari.

“Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.”

Cover Image Credit: The Dryer Report

Popular Right Now

Clocking In: The 9 To 5 Feminist

Jane Fonda, #MeToo and Fashion
689
views

She puts the finishing touches on her makeup, so they say she is in dress code. She buttons to the top of her blouse, so they don’t stare. She smiles and asks politely, so they won’t call her uptight. She doesn’t smile too much though, so they don’t think she’s flirting. She doesn’t question her salary, so they don’t report her. She doesn’t tell anyone what her creep of a boss did, so they don’t fire her. Just another day at the office.

She is not alone. The modern woman is forced to deal with workplace discrimination and sexual harassment in silence. Even her dress code, from the makeup on her face to the heels on her feet, is designed with a restrictive double standard.

Despite past efforts to combat such inequality, this has largely remained the status quo. However, 2017 marked a turning point in the fight for a workplace equality with the viral social media campaigns #MeToo and #TimesUp, which are aimed at combating sexual harassment and sexist double standards.

These campaigns amplify the forceful rallying cries of working women and shines light on the unspoken reality of their experiences in the workplace at the hands of men. These protests echo the feminist movement of the 1970s which was in part influenced by its representation in film, an iconic example of which is Jane Fonda’s trailblazing production of “9 to 5.”

Taking inspiration from her friend’s Boston organization of female workers “Nine to Five,” Fonda sought to bring to light the untold stories women in the office often experienced in a way that was palpable to the public: comedy. The 1980 office satire “9 to 5,” starring Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin and Fonda herself, addresses the wage gap, sexual harassment and blatant sexism through the lens of three women fed up with their villainous, misogynistic male boss.

In “9 to 5,” the boss subjects the feminist trio to different aspects of the same sexist narrative. He calls the new girl stupid and incapable. He demands his secretary to turn around and bend over for his viewing pleasure. He takes the credit of the only female office manager to further his standing with the company. The sexist dynamic between him and the trio is reflected in their attire and connects the events of the movie to the feminist movement as a whole.

Stereotyped as the weaker sex, the female employees of “9 to 5” adhere to a strict dress code characteristic of 1970s workplace apparel of below the knee skirts, silk ties, blouses adorned with bows, heels and a full face of makeup. The physical restrictiveness and beauty standards imposed on women by their male superiors shows the subtlety of sexist workplace culture.

Outside the office, women of the 1970s were embracing comfort and function in their casual fashion. Denim jeans, loose-fitting shirts and flat Oxford shoes reflected the growing movement of women to make their own choices and live as they please, free from the limitations of the patriarchy. Within the walls of the office, however, it was still very much a man’s world.

The requirement that women maintain feminine standards of beauty in the office ensures that the standard of acceptable clothing for working women is decided by the men. As a consequence, men use this double standard to solidify ideas that women are incapable of a man’s job and are not to be taken seriously. Sexist ideas like these supported the wage gap and kept women from advancing, despite having the qualifications to do so.

By the film’s end, however, “9 to 5” rejects this pervasive narrative that women’s capabilities are limited by their clothing. Following a series of bumbling mishaps, the trio find themselves in charge of the company and replace the sexist status quo with a progressive and equal workplace, fulfilling the goal of the feminist movement.

In showing the efficiency and progressiveness of a female-run workplace, the film shows that women are equally capable of a man’s job (and that they can do it better). “9 to 5” redefined working women as competent and equal to men, shedding the stereotypes of how they should dress and behave to appease the sexist status quo.

Considering the current political climate of social regression, despite changes in clothing and office technology, the dynamic between men and women in the office hasn’t changed much. Women still earn less than men. Men hold most positions of power. The goals of the current #MeToo and #TimesUp movements mirror the fanciful aspirations of “9 to 5.”

But what’s changed? What has made the contemporary feminist movements so much more powerful and influential than any before them? Deemed radical for its time, the progressive themes of equality and a workplace free of harassment are now contemporary feminist staples. The era of inclusion is fast approaching. Thanks to the current feminist revolt and the trailblazing of the past, men in positions of power are no longer able to use their influence as a shield to silence women or hide behind the public eye.

In a symbolic exchange of the unending struggle of the feminist movement at the 2017 Emmy Awards, Fonda reminds us that “back in 1980, in that movie, (Parton, Tomlin and I) refused to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.” Tomlin reminds us of the challenges that lie ahead in the final push for equality. “And in 2017, we still refuse to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.”

Cover Image Credit: Rob Young

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

To The Students Walking Out On April 20th

Build the change. Push the change. Be the change.
Cali C.
Cali C.
617
views

Dear students participating in the national walkout on April 20th,

On March 14th, you walked out of your schools for 17 minutes to remember the 17 innocent lives that were brutally taken at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. On March 24th, you marched in one of the 800+ marches around the world to demand long-overdue change and you stood up for those who cannot anymore due to gun violence.

You may have been ridiculed for what you did. You may have received ill-mannered remarks from your peers, and surprisingly (but not really, if we’re being honest here), adults. Some of your schools’ administrations even punished you for protesting peacefully. Some people said that what you were doing "won't change anything." The list of negative expressions towards the walkout and the march could go on and on, unfortunately.

However, all if not almost every historical national movement also faced criticism. But they kept going. And their voices were heard. And change happened.

On April 20, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting, you will walk out again to remember the victims of that day (it’s daunting how many events correlate to that statement) and to tell the world that silence is no longer an option.

You will no longer go to school, a concert, the movies, the mall, church, anywhere and have the fear that you may not make it home that day. You will no longer live under laws that remain unchanged after far too many lives have been taken by something that should have been taken care of a long time ago.

You will no longer tolerate the cycle of “shooting...thoughts and prayers...debate...no change in anything...life goes back to normal.”

You’ve probably heard this everywhere these past two months, but do not stop after that day. Because this is so much more than just a walkout. This is so much more than just a march. This is so much more than the hashtag and the videos and photos you’re seeing on social media.

Educate yourself on issues that matter. Go to your town hall meetings. Get involved in your school, city, and state organizations. And most important of them all - register to vote. If you are too young to vote, that does not mean that your voice does not matter. Volunteer at the polls. Discuss current events in your community. Practice civic engagement. Whatever you do, do not stop contributing to this turning point in history.

You are the future. You are the leaders we need.

It's about damn time something is done to end gun violence, and it starts with you.

The world is going to be a better place because of you, and don’t you dare let anyone convince you otherwise.

Cover Image Credit: Instagram
Cali C.
Cali C.

Related Content

Facebook Comments