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.
128
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

8 Reasons Why My Dad Is the Most Important Man In My Life

Forever my number one guy.
69009
views

Growing up, there's been one consistent man I can always count on, my father. In any aspect of my life, my dad has always been there, showing me unconditional love and respect every day. No matter what, I know that my dad will always be the most important man in my life for many reasons.

1. He has always been there.

Literally. From the day I was born until today, I have never not been able to count on my dad to be there for me, uplift me and be the best dad he can be.

2. He learned to adapt and suffer through girly trends to make me happy.

I'm sure when my dad was younger and pictured his future, he didn't think about the Barbie pretend pageants, dressing up as a princess, perfecting my pigtails and enduring other countless girly events. My dad never turned me down when I wanted to play a game, no matter what and was always willing to help me pick out cute outfits and do my hair before preschool.

3. He sends the cutest texts.

Random text messages since I have gotten my own cell phone have always come my way from my dad. Those randoms "I love you so much" and "I am so proud of you" never fail to make me smile, and I can always count on my dad for an adorable text message when I'm feeling down.

4. He taught me how to be brave.

When I needed to learn how to swim, he threw me in the pool. When I needed to learn how to ride a bike, he went alongside me and made sure I didn't fall too badly. When I needed to learn how to drive, he was there next to me, making sure I didn't crash.

5. He encourages me to best the best I can be.

My dad sees the best in me, no matter how much I fail. He's always there to support me and turn my failures into successes. He can sit on the phone with me for hours, talking future career stuff and listening to me lay out my future plans and goals. He wants the absolute best for me, and no is never an option, he is always willing to do whatever it takes to get me where I need to be.

6. He gets sentimental way too often, but it's cute.

Whether you're sitting down at the kitchen table, reminiscing about your childhood, or that one song comes on that your dad insists you will dance to together on your wedding day, your dad's emotions often come out in the cutest possible way, forever reminding you how loved you are.


7. He supports you, emotionally and financially.

Need to vent about a guy in your life that isn't treating you well? My dad is there. Need some extra cash to help fund spring break? He's there for that, too.

8. He shows me how I should be treated.

Yes, my dad treats me like a princess, and I don't expect every guy I meet to wait on me hand and foot, but I do expect respect, and that's exactly what my dad showed I deserve. From the way he loves, admires, and respects me, he shows me that there are guys out there who will one day come along and treat me like that. My dad always advises me to not put up with less than I deserve and assures me that the right guy will come along one day.

For these reasons and more, my dad will forever be my No. 1 man. I love you!

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

Why The Idea Of 'No Politics At The Dinner Table' Takes Place And Why We Should Avoid It

When did having a dialogue become so rare?

647
views

Why has the art of civilized debate and conversation become unheard of in daily life? Why is it considered impolite to talk politics with coworkers and friends? Expressing ideas and discussing different opinions should not be looked down upon.

I have a few ideas as to why this is our current societal norm.

1. Politics is personal.

Your politics can reveal a lot about who you are. Expressing these (sometimes controversial) opinions may put you in a vulnerable position. It is possible for people to draw unfair conclusions from one viewpoint you hold. This fosters a fear of judgment when it comes to our political beliefs.

Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum of political belief, there is a world of assumption that goes along with any opinion. People have a growing concern that others won't hear them out based on one belief.

As if a single opinion could tell you all that you should know about someone. Do your political opinions reflect who you are as a person? Does it reflect your hobbies? Your past?

The question becomes "are your politics indicative enough of who you are as a person to warrant a complete judgment?"

Personally, I do not think you would even scratch the surface of who I am just from knowing my political identification.

2. People are impolite.

The politics themselves are not impolite. But many people who wield passionate, political opinion act impolite and rude when it comes to those who disagree.

The avoidance of this topic among friends, family, acquaintances and just in general, is out of a desire to 'keep the peace'. Many people have friends who disagree with them and even family who disagree with them. We justify our silence out of a desire to avoid unpleasant situations.

I will offer this: It might even be better to argue with the ones you love and care about, because they already know who you are aside from your politics, and they love you unconditionally (or at least I would hope).

We should be having these unpleasant conversations. And you know what? They don't even need to be unpleasant! Shouldn't we be capable of debating in a civilized manner? Can't we find common ground?

I attribute the loss of political conversation in daily life to these factors. 'Keeping the peace' isn't an excuse. We should be discussing our opinions constantly and we should be discussing them with those who think differently.

Instead of discouraging political conversation, we should be encouraging kindness and understanding. That's how we will avoid the unpleasantness that these conversations sometimes bring.

By avoiding them altogether, we are doing our youth a disservice because they are not being exposed to government, law, and politics, and they are not learning to deal with people and ideas that they don't agree with.

Next Thanksgiving, talk politics at the table.

Related Content

Facebook Comments