I have seen a few estimates at the amount of people "captitalism" has killed and I was thinking how many people democracy has killed, the holocaust, vietnam, maybe all the drugs the FDA has held of the market ect, it's got to be a big number. has this been done or has anyone got any estimates?
Perhaps The Black Book of Democracy needs to be written?
What's the alternative to democracy?
"What's the alternative to democracy?"
Well, it's the best form of government that's been tried. Maybe we should look at alternatives to government.
"Well, it's the best form of government that's been tried."
Have you read Hoppe, Democracy: the god that failed?
"Have you read Hoppe, Democracy: the god that failed?"
I haven't yet. I was riffing off the Winston Churchill quote.
Umm... I hate to be Debby Downer, but uh.... ony one of those was done by a democracit regime..... and even that was began by executive order w/o the approval of congress
(The FDA doesn't make or distribute drugs. They license capitalists to.... Any deaths caused by a drug company was caused by capitalists.)
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
"(The FDA doesn't make or distribute drugs. They license capitalists to.... Any deaths caused by a drug company was caused by capitalists.)"
The OP was talking about the drugs that were withheld from the market by the FDA. That would include drugs the FDA explicitly prohibited and those that weren't developed due to the FDA increasing the cost of development.
What are the estimates of deaths caused by capitalism?
Around -5.8 billion.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Hitler came to power in a democracy, so I don't see how democracy can't be blamed for Hitler. also the immigration policy of other countries towards Jews and other refugees ramped up the body count.
David Sherin: What are the estimates of deaths caused by capitalism?
All the estimates I have seen use a wacky definition of capitalism, they include all wars, all starvation in the 3rd world, all the smokers who have died ect.
Mmm, not to mention everyone who died of old age...
Lol funny thread. How many people were killed by mere flawed ideas? I heard someone claiming anarchism killed more people than any state in whole history... when I asked for facts, that person mentioned French Revolution etc... go figure.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Esuric:Around -5.8 billion.
Ha
Hitler came to power in a democracy, so I don't see how democracy can't be blamed for Hitler. also the immigration policy of other countries towards Jews and other refugees ramped up the body count
Because Hitller lost the general election, was installed chancellor, and declared dictator. Maybe, just maybe, you could blame that on republicanism.. it's quite a stretch to blame it on democracy.
I find it amusing that people blame system's for all of the wrongs in the world without seeing that it's really just a bunch of Individuals violating the right's of other Individual's, while distracting them with pretty slogan's and delusional idea's of "UNITY".
Laotzu del Zinn: Hitler came to power in a democracy, so I don't see how democracy can't be blamed for Hitler. also the immigration policy of other countries towards Jews and other refugees ramped up the body count Because Hitller lost the general election, was installed chancellor, and declared dictator. Maybe, just maybe, you could blame that on republicanism.. it's quite a stretch to blame it on democracy.
Didn't he lose the general election but was apointed chancelor by the democratically elected president and then approved by a referendum?
The NAZI party obtained power through alliances with other parties, and didn't really come until the majority until after the Reichstag fire and the special election of 1933 which excluded the Communist party. Even at this high point, the NAZIs had less than 50% of the parilment. It's still a huge accomplishment considering they were below 10% around a decade prior to that election. In 1932 they had become the largest party in parliment, controlling around 37% of the vote. Hilter was the runner up in the 1932 election, and was appointed Chancellor in order to capture the majority in parliment.
The Enabling Act, which granted Hitler legislative power, was the beginning of the end for the republic. It took very little time for Hitler to ban all parties other than the NAZI party. Hitler's power grab occurred gradually from 1933 to 1939. It's pretty safe to say that the republic died in 1933 while the government shifted towards dictatorship. So was it really democracy that killed in NAZI Germany or facism? I believe it was the latter.
NidStyles:I find it amusing that people blame system's for all of the wrongs in the world without seeing that it's really just a bunch of Individuals violating the right's of other Individual's, while distracting them with pretty slogan's and delusional idea's of "UNITY".
I think the point of this thread, and feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, is to determine how many people were killed in the name of democracy, not how many people democracy (a concept which is not capable of acting) literally murdered.
My critique is not about the blame game. Rather it about the premise that anyone can blame a system for the actions of Individual's.
Let me lay out a hypothetical.
I can go to someone's house and rob them and murder them, and blame Capitalism for making the gold, currency, and food worth something, however that doesn't mean that I would be valid. All it would mean is that I was delusional, irrational, and not willing to accept the responsibilities for my own action's.
With this in mind, you can not blame concepts or idea's for the folly of Individual humans. The only concept that can be made to blame is that Individual's lack of rational and ethical principles. Blaming entire concepts and theories of thought is a scapegoat, and purely antithemic to Free-Market's and of my take of Austrian School.
We should also ask, how many lives has system x saved?
Despite me possibly flooding this thread, I will answer.
None, Individual's as a whole will live where they can, and how they can. It's only natural that given a set of circumstances and a situation, there will alway's be those that can survive. It's up to Individuals, not systems. I will say that there is a set of circumstances and situations that certain variables will allow for those said Individual's to live in prosperity and have a more comfortable life though.
These instances are not based on the system, but rather the Individual's action's within the system they have agreed to establish. Capitalism, as in Free-Market like system's, throughout history have shown to give a greater chance of prosperity for the Individual's involved. The down side is that those that can not seem to understand how to take advantage of this situation tend to enforce statist action's to quite literally steal this prosperity from those that understand it. This is the nature of the state, and only can be circumvented through education of the principles of Free-Market's. This is the greatest challenge.
None, Individual's as a whole will live where they can, and how they can.
We can then just say system x didn't kill anyone, but individuals within it did. We can't have it both ways to prove our point.
The whole question smacks of pre-high school debate tactics. I wouldn't even bother with it.
That is the truth of the matter. It's simply irrational to abdicate the personal responsibility to the system on the basis of justificational morality.
I really wish more people would read Nietzsche for the very reason that his argument against morality on personal responsibility applies to the very core idea of Liberty. Except too many people read diluted version's of his work that interpret advocation of irrational hubris, which is counter to the rest of his message.
Demoracy hasn't killed anybody, it's all in the social contract. We are the government, thus it's impossible for us to kill ourselves, unless you're talking about suicide.
:-P
I don't get why people say that democracy (at least by itself) is the best form of government when in fact it is one of the worst. If i recall correctly, Aristotle put it on the bad side of a popular form of government, the positive side being a republic.
Some interesting things to consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos
"Most important to Aristotle in preserving a constitution is education: if all the citizens are aware of law, history, and the constitution they will endeavour to maintain a good government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeia
The good version of demokratia was called the politeia, for which Cicero used the Latin term 'res publica', the common thing, i.e. state, power, regime. Plato had a very similar typology of states in the Republic (Cicero's translation of the above term). Modern democracy is still a 'res publica', with terrible results. Plato and Aristotle are wrong on most things.
Phaedros:I don't get why people say that democracy (at least by itself) is the best form of government when in fact it is one of the worst.
Because the term has a blurred meaning to them. They use the term democracy essentially to mean "free society" or "society run by the people rather than kings". Often the term is even understood as an economic system, democracy being the opposite of communism. Due to the fallacy of collective terms they may even think that in a democracy "the people" are in charge themselves, thus it could not oppress anyone.
"Because the term has a blurred meaning to them. They use the term democracy essentially to mean "free society" or "society run by the people rather than kings". Often the term is even understood as an economic system, democracy being the opposite of communism. Due to the fallacy of collective terms they may even think that in a democracy "the people" are in charge themselves, thus it could not oppress anyone."
I agree with this, people tend to ascribe everything good to "democracy".
I have noticed that in modern usage there has been a twisting of the word Democracy to mean more of something closer to the idea of stateless Socialism, which we all should know is irrational and completely impossible. However the so called anarcho-communist, or Liberal Democrat's as they call themselves these day's actually believe they can use the state to establish a non-voluntary system, and then have it absolved of it's task once the stateless society was established.
I distinctively remember a couple of Hegel fan's writing about that. I also seem to recall how well that worked out for this little known nation state called the U.S.S.R..
I can't descibe the frustration I have, when I encounter people that honestly believe in these ideas. It's even more embarissing to know that there are Linguistic Professor's at MIT that is a proponents of this same idea. The poor ignorant sap's that have never had an original thought in their life soak this stuff up, while spending their parent's money to buy his book's. I guess the inate contradiction of his private property right's in light of his message never actually clued any of these young brilliant minds in on his intention's. I guess they never looked at when he get's the majority of his paychecks from either.
"Plato and Aristotle are wrong on most things."
Lol just caught this as I happened to be reviewing this thread. Would you care to substantiate?