We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by government.
Oh, this is just charming. People are still dying, and now you're going to sit on the sidelines making tally marks for your pissing contest.
I didn't start this discussion. But the question remains... are we better with or without governments. If you argue that we need gov't for safety, it seems valid to ask under which system will have less killing. It seems to me that situations like Rawanda are just more examples of how gov'ts can kill more people and more efficiently than any single mass murderer. And speaking of the sidelines, what, exactly, are YOU doing about it?
You can't count up human lives and say ``this entity is more evil than this entity.'' It doesn't work that way. People are people, regardless, and usually don't deserve that kind of premature termination.
Why on Earth can't you can't up the lives? It's pretty easy. Hitler was worse than Manson because he killed millions while Manson was only able to kill, what, less than a dozen? None of their victims deserved to die. But if Hitler hadn't been able to take control of the German gov't, fewer people would have been killed (unless some other crazy got the gov't).
As for the running dictionary flame, by all means, piss on. Perhaps ^^^^^^^ later, when you mature a little, discussion can get back to more ^^^^^^ meaningful topics.
A classic case of pot & kettle syndrome. It is, however, difficult to argue that "anarchy" is better than gov't when someone's definition of "anarchy" is not "no government". rgds-- TA (tallard@frb.gov) I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me. pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6 DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D