Skip to main content

Forget Genocide, Democide is Death by Government

Do we really want an organization which is responsible for the deaths of 262 million people in the 20th century (that comes out to 5 human beings killed every minute for 100 years) to be the sole possessor of firearms? The professor who maintains the above website has defined the term democide to mean death at the hands of the government. A vast ocean of humanity has died at the hands of the state throughout history. Given that fact, think carefully about the following question:

Does an organization become legitimate by virtue of there being only one of its kind in existence in a given territory?

Is it the fact that the city police are the only police in the city limits (not strictly true, but close to true) that makes them legitimate? Does having a multiplicity of gun owners make gun ownership illegitimate for all but the one, legitimate organization, i.e. the police, the state? What is it about there being only one organization in a given territory permitted to use firearms (the state) that makes it legitimate? What is it that makes a multiplicity of gun owners illegitimate?

Does an individual who is being assaulted and fears for his life have the right* to use force, even deadly force, to defend himself? Let's say guns are banned by the state and an individual is assaulted by a gun-toting criminal - by sheer luck, the victim managed to wrest the firearm from the perpetrator without being harmed but the perpetrator is persisting in the assault. Does the now gun-bearing victim have a right to use that firearm to defend himself from the criminal? If not, then why does he have the right to use deadly force, so long as it is not with a gun? If so, then why is it illegitimate for him to bear a firearm at all other times so long as he only uses it when and where it is justified (as in the above case)?

I don't think it is at all obvious that the state has a moral imperative to be the sole purveyor of firearms and the use of force. When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. A rampaging gunman can kill as many as 30-something people (cf Virginia Tech) if there is no one to shoot back. Gangs can kill dozens or hundreds of people if there is no one to shoot back. Warlords and armed tribes can kill many thousands when there is no one to shoot back. But only the modern, taxing/inflating government has the resources to kill millions, hundreds of millions, when there is no one to shoot back.

In my view, a disarmed public at the mercy of an armed state is the most dangerous idea ever. Its historical track record is sheer carnage. It's a miracle that anybody believes in it, today.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
2 comments
Read more
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...
1 comment
Read more

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...
2 comments
Read more