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.
110
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

I'm The Girl Who'd Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

You raise your protest picket signs and I’ll raise my white picket fence.
368714
views

Social Media feeds are constantly filled with quotes on women's rights, protests with mobs of women, and an array of cleverly worded picket signs.

Good for them, standing up for their beliefs and opinions. Will I be joining my tight-knit family of the same gender?

Nope, no thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not going to be oblivious to my history and the advancements that women have fought to achieve. I am aware that the strides made by many women before me have provided us with voting rights, a voice, equality, and equal pay in the workforce.

SEE ALSO: To The Girl Who Would Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

For that, I am deeply thankful. But at this day in age, I know more female managers in the workforce than male. I know more women in business than men. I know more female students in STEM programs than male students. So what’s with all the hype? We are girl bosses, we can run the world, we don’t need to fight the system anymore.

Please stop.

Because it is insulting to the rest of us girls who are okay with being homemakers, wives, or stay-at-home moms. It's dividing our sisterhood, and it needs to stop.

All these protests and strong statements make us feel like now we HAVE to obtain a power position in our career. It's our rightful duty to our sisters. And if we do not, we are a disappointment to the gender and it makes us look weak.

Weak to the point where I feel ashamed to say to a friend “I want to be a stay at home mom someday.” Then have them look at me like I must have been brain-washed by a man because that can be the only explanation. I'm tired of feeling belittled for being a traditionalist.

Why?

Because why should I feel bad for wanting to create a comfortable home for my future family, cooking for my husband, being a soccer mom, keeping my house tidy? Because honestly, I cannot wait.

I will have no problem taking my future husband’s last name, and following his lead.

The Bible appoints men to be the head of a family, and for wives to submit to their husbands. (This can be interpreted in so many ways, so don't get your panties in a bunch at the word “submit”). God specifically made women to be gentle and caring, and we should not be afraid to embrace that. God created men to be leaders with the strength to carry the weight of a family.

However, in no way does this mean that the roles cannot be flipped. If you want to take on the responsibility, by all means, you go girl. But for me personally? I'm sensitive, I cry during horror movies, I'm afraid of basements and dark rooms. I, in no way, am strong enough to take on the tasks that men have been appointed to. And I'm okay with that.

So please, let me look forward to baking cookies for bake sales and driving a mom car.

And I'll support you in your endeavors and climb to the top of the corporate ladder. It doesn't matter what side you are on as long as we support each other, because we all need some girl power.

Cover Image Credit: Unsplash

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
Facebook Comments