Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Jul '16 11:23 / 1 edit
    https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0674076087&linkCode=xm2&redirect=true



    DEATH BY GOVERNMENT...it is most common.

    Government causes more death, suffering, and destruction than all other things combined, but if you inform a statist of this clearly obvious fact, they lose their small minds.

    DEMOCIDE!!!
    Over the past decade a number of researchers have attempted to document the extent to which various governments during the twentieth century committed acts of mass murder against their own citizens. The millions of deaths catalogued by such researchers as R.J. Rummel, author of Power Kills and Death by Government, and by the authors of The Black Book of Communism, are not deaths caused by foreign armies, but by all those unfortunate souls’ own governments.

    The reason for all the killing, whether it is called genocide or "democide," to use Rummel’s term, was to eliminate all opposition to the ruling regime and its ideology. In Russia, the kulaks "who resisted collectivization [of land] were shot, and the others deported," according to The Black Book of Communism (p. 9). When the rural population of the Ukraine resisted, Stalin created a famine that killed 6 million in a few months. "Virtually identical crimes" were committed "by the regimes of Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and Pol Pot," according to The Black Book (p. 10).

    In Power Kills, R. J. Rummel writes that "democidal" regimes tend to become even more vicious toward their own people when their political power "is conjoined with an absolutist ideology" (p. 93). And, "when the rulers of such regimes find for whatever reason that the continued existence of a social group is incompatible with their beliefs or goals, totalitarian power enables them to destroy that group" (p. 93). "War or rebellion" have often provided "an excuse and cover for a regime to eliminate those social groups it finds objectionable."

    Armed with this understanding, the authors of The Black Book present the following statistics regarding how various communist governments killed their own citizens by the millions (p. 4):

    •U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths
    •China: 65 million deaths
    •Vietnam: 1 million deaths
    •North Korea: 2 million deaths
    •Cambodia: 2 million deaths
    •Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
    •Latin America: 150,000 deaths
    •Africa: 1.7 million deaths
    •Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
    Rummel has studied more than just the former communist regimes, and includes Nazi Germany’s 21 million civilian murders, among others.
  2. 30 Jul '16 11:27 / 3 edits
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/mark-nestmann/criminalization-everything/

    You are likely committing a crime right now.


    Do you own a dog? You could face six months in federal prison If you walk it on federal lands on a leash longer than six feet in length.

    Do you have a bank account? If you deposit or withdraw more than $10,000 in cash over multiple transactions, you could be imprisoned for up to five years. You could also lose every penny in the account, under the theory it “facilitated” your crime.

    Do you have foreign investments? If you neglect to tell Uncle Sam about them, you could face draconian penalties. Forget to file just one form? You could face a $10,000 penalty per account per year.

    There’s no requirement that you know any of these crimes exist for you to be found guilty of violating them. After all, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” (unless your last name is Clinton)

    Given that fact, you might think that Uncle Sam would make it easy to understand exactly what’s legal and what’s not. Think again.

    In 1790, the first set of federal criminal laws contained a grand total of 20 crimes. Since then, the number of federal crimes listed has grown like cancer. No one knows how many federal crimes exist, although a 1998 study from the American Bar Association concluded the total was likely “much higher” than 3,000.

    It’s no wonder the US has the world’s largest prison population. More people rot in local, county, state, and federal prisons in the US than in all other developed countries combined. Over 2.2 million Americans currently live in some type of jail.

    Given these facts, you could be forgiven for thinking that Congress might put the brakes on penning new federal criminal law. Unfortunately, that’s not happening. Indeed, the pace of federal “criminalization” is accelerating. A 2008 study concluded that since the start of 2000, Congress created at least 452 new crimes. That’s more than one a week.


    You’re Likely Committing a Crime Right Now,

    Think of it this way. If you are in government and make everything illegal, then you can pick and choose whom you want to lock up. Those that don't seem to pose a threat to you, you can ignore the laws, much like they do with illegal immigration. However, those that seem to pose a threat can be easily targeted and exterminated.
  3. 30 Jul '16 11:37 / 1 edit
    Government and the economy

    http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-casey-with-some-luck-trump-will-destroy-the-republican-party




    From Doug Casey:
    The government is a force. The essence of government is coercion. So, people attracted to it are necessarily the wrong kind of people, coercion-oriented people. Government draws much more than its share of criminal personalities.

    And they’re not the most intelligent people—completely contrary to common belief. It’s because one sign of intelligence is not just seeing the immediate and direct consequences of an action—any intelligent six-year-old can usually do that. It’s seeing the indirect and delayed consequences of actions. They’re very bad at that.

    Almost everything government does, certainly relative to the economy, creates distortions and misallocations of capital. Their inflation of the currency discourages saving and creates the business cycle. Their taxes and regulations destroy capital. Their actions are almost purely destructive of society. This reminds me of one definition of stupidity—it’s an unwitting tendency to self-destruction. So, people in government are not “the best and the brightest.”
  4. 30 Jul '16 11:42 / 2 edits
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/kirkpatrick-sale/land-free/


    Land of the Free? Not Economically
    Regulations. Government regulations, whether passed with good intentions (worker safety, environmental protection) or not (corporate protections, Congressional pork), have come at immense costs, most of them hidden. Costs to the manufacturer or producer, costs to the consumer, costs to the state, county, city, school district, and neighborhood for compliance, and costs to Washington for the time and (often considerable) personnel it takes to enforce them, probably the largest number of the 2.6 million people in the executive branch.

    And these regulations involve every aspect, including the most intimate, of the average American’s life: toilets, mattresses, food, lightbulbs, showerheads, clothes, diapers, washing machines and dryers, refrigerators, bicycles, television sets, and of course cars. There is no official tabulation of these costs—the government would prefer to keep them hidden and uncalculated—but a respected economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Wayne Crews, estimated in 2015 that government regulations would cost the economy $1.882 trillion in that year in lost productivity and higher prices, a figure that is greater than the GDP of all but eleven countries in the world.

    The Code of Federal Regulations, an immense library of all the regulations ever passed, was 175,268 small-type pages in 2014 (117 times bigger than the Bible) and Obama’s administration has added about 3,500 a year, so we’re now over 180,000. For every law that’s passed by Congress, the Executive promulgates about 16 new regulations—in 2014 it was 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jul '16 12:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/kirkpatrick-sale/land-free/


    Land of the Free? Not Economically
    Regulations. Government regulations, whether passed with good intentions (worker safety, environmental protection) or not (corporate protections, Congressional pork), have come at immense costs, most of them hidden. Costs to the manufacturer or producer, c ...[text shortened]... mulgates about 16 new regulations—in 2014 it was 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
    This article is well worth reading in full for a rebuttal of the simplistic analysis presented in your cite (which ignores any benefit to regulations focusing solely on claimed costs): http://www.epi.org/publication/regulation_employment_and_the_economy_fears_of_job_loss_are_overblown/

    Its data and history is compelling and backs the ultimate conclusion:

    For decades, regulations have generally and consistently struck a reasonable balance, with their benefits to health, safety, and well-being far exceeding their costs.
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Jul '16 13:35
    The visions of all the dead children in Syria that Hillary Clinton helped to kill; the children bombed to bits in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Obama’s drones, the grisly chaos of Libya, the utter wasteland of Iraq, the death and destruction everywhere caused by American military intervention. The Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, you name it — your country has bombed it or destroyed its civilian life in some basic way.

    When I heard all the Americans cheering for the military and the pronouncements of might coming from the speakers in the Wells Fargo Centre, I loathed you. I loathed every single one of you. I knew in my gut that what I was taught as a child was true, which is that YOU are the enemy. YOU are the country to be feared. YOU are the country to be disgusted by. YOU are ignorant. And your greed and self-satisfaction and unearned pride knows no bounds.

    I am not an American tonight. I reject my Puritan ancestors who landed in this country in 1648. I reject the words I voiced at my citizenship ceremony. I reject every moment of thrilling discovery I ever had in this country.

    You people have no idea what it is like for people from other countries to hear you boast and cheer for your guns and your bombs and your soldiers and your murderous military leaders and your war criminals and your murdering and conscienceless Commander in Chief. All those soaring words are received by the rest of us, by us non-Americans, by all the cells in our body, as absolutely repugnant and obscene.

    And there you all are tonight, glued to your TVs and your computers, your hearts swelled with pride because you belong to the strongest country on Earth, cheering on your Murderer President. Ignorant of the entire world’s repulsion. You kill and you kill and you kill, and still you remain proud.

    We are fools.


    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/my-fellow-americans-we-are-fools/
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Jul '16 18:59
    https://www.facebook.com/thedeepleft/videos/515193698686105/
  8. 31 Jul '16 01:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This article is well worth reading in full for a rebuttal of the simplistic analysis presented in your cite (which ignores any benefit to regulations focusing solely on claimed costs): http://www.epi.org/publication/regulation_employment_and_the_economy_fears_of_job_loss_are_overblown/

    Its data and history is compelling and backs the ultimate c ...[text shortened]... onable balance, with their benefits to health, safety, and well-being far exceeding their costs.
    Naturally, for government to have a legitimacy, they must provide some positive services. It then is used to explain away any other possible detriments to society, as if one outweighed the other, or perhaps there not being any detriments at all. Even Al Capone gave to charities. He knew this gave him an air of legitimacy.

    Usually when talking about the virtues of government intervention, they point to the unknowable. They tell us that a stimulus plan will provide an "X" number of jobs and bring down the unemployment level to "X"%. Then when this does not happen, they glibly sneer and say how much worse things would have gotten without government intervention.

    In this article, they discuss the regulations of Dodd Frank.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

    The more all encompassing regulations become, the more complex they become. It gets to a point where it is hard enough just to interpret the mountains of paper work that was used to write such regulations, let alone be able to study the benefits and detriments of such regulations.

    And lastly, at what point is society to choose regulation and safety over freedom? Take smoking, for example. We all know that having the freedom to smoke adds to the costs within society in terms of health care costs. Likewise, employers are now not hiring those who smoke due to their lack of productivity on average. Currently, government does not prohibit smoking altogether, although they have imposed "sin taxes" to try and discourage smoking as well as regulations requiring warning labels on cigarettes. So if you support regulations on the premise of saving society money and keeping people safe, I would think you would want to ban smoking across the board. Is this your position or is freedom far more valuable than our safety and economic welfare?
  9. 31 Jul '16 01:31
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The visions of all the dead children in Syria that Hillary Clinton helped to kill; the children bombed to bits in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Obama’s drones, the grisly chaos of Libya, the utter wasteland of Iraq, the death and destruction everywhere caused by American military intervention. The Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, you ...[text shortened]... e are fools.


    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/my-fellow-americans-we-are-fools/
    The state is the catalyst for organized warfare across the globe. No matter what side you take in such wars, it is the state and the state alone that enables these wars to exist.

    I grow weary of people blaming religion when it comes to the history of war. What they really should see is it is the state behind such wars, whether such governments are perceived as atheist or religious. Hands down, the state is the leader of gun deaths around the globe, yet it is the government who wishes to take guns away from the general populace.

    The conundrum is, if you oppose collectivism and the subsequent world conquering armies that they create, then how does one prevent other collectivist armies from other parts of the world from conquering you?

    As we saw in Europe, the collectivist nations that created WW1 and WW2 motivated Wilson and FDR to create similar governments and armies to fight them off. Then the US became what they were trying to fight off.
  10. 31 Jul '16 03:04
    Speaking of regulations, the US government is one of the worst polluters.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html
  11. 31 Jul '16 03:07 / 1 edit
    So if a corporation pollutes a river, like the recent one in West Virginia, then that corporation pays.

    But who pays when the EPA devastates a river with pollution?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

    I guess we all pay.
  12. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    31 Jul '16 04:02
    Originally posted by finnegan
    https://www.facebook.com/thedeepleft/videos/515193698686105/
    Odd sort of response, are the millionaires the buskers refer to the elite socialist and communist dictators responsible for the deaths of millions of the OP?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    31 Jul '16 04:03
    Police are the government and they shoot lots of black ppls
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jul '16 08:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    So if a corporation pollutes a river, like the recent one in West Virginia, then that corporation pays.

    But who pays when the EPA devastates a river with pollution?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

    I guess we all pay.
    It is of course possible for government officials to err and cause pollution. However, left unregulated it would be in the economic best interest of firms to pollute; it is a classic negative externality i.e. the cost of the pollution would be borne by others:

    In the case of pollution—the traditional example of a negative externality—a polluter makes decisions based only on the direct cost of and profit opportunity from production and does not consider the indirect costs to those harmed by the pollution. The indirect costs include decreased quality of life, say in the case of a home owner near a smokestack; higher health care costs; and forgone production opportunities, for example, when pollution harms activities such as tourism. Since the indirect costs are not borne by the producer, and therefore not passed on to the end user of the goods produced by the polluter, the social or total costs of production are larger than the private costs.

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jul '16 08:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    Naturally, for government to have a legitimacy, they must provide some positive services. It then is used to explain away any other possible detriments to society, as if one outweighed the other, or perhaps there not being any detriments at all. Even Al Capone gave to charities. He knew this gave him an air of legitimacy.

    Usually when talking about the ...[text shortened]... rd. Is this your position or is freedom far more valuable than our safety and economic welfare?
    A libertarian does not support government restriction of private behavior that does harm only to themselves so your smoking example is in-apposite.

    Surely the financial crash of 2008 proved that common sense regulation is utterly necessary. Bitching about Dodd-Frank given what happened before it is surreal.