Thedesolateone:Well actually I was under the impression that Christianity prohibited killing, rather than specifically murder. (This point is not as important, but I heard there is a level of argument that this was only meant to apply to Jews, considering actions held up as OK in the bible after the ten commandments).
The law in general was done away with as far as a system of rules goes, but I don't know of anywhere this specific commandment would have been changed. In Acts (chapter 4 or 5 I think) Ananais and Sapphiras (exuse my spelling) are both killed for lying to God. Of course they are actually killed by God so that example isn't really helpful. I don't know of anywhere else the issue of the church killing others comes up in the New Testament though.
GilesStratton: Actually, they've been far better for liberties than the secular state has been. Religious states presume they have somebody to answer to, the Lord, and as far as I'm aware most religions forbid murder. At least Christianity does, which it what we're discussing. The secular state has nobody to answer to but it's self.
Actually, they've been far better for liberties than the secular state has been. Religious states presume they have somebody to answer to, the Lord, and as far as I'm aware most religions forbid murder. At least Christianity does, which it what we're discussing. The secular state has nobody to answer to but it's self.
I haven't had a laugh like that in a while.
How about we just look at the numbers:
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
Yes, MUCH better than those secular states.
My, what an impartial "study" there.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: My, what an impartial "study" there.
Check the references friend - numbers don't lie and if you read the whole thing it is being VERY low balled on the side of the theists.
The sad part is that even with the concessions it isn't even close.
To begin with this doesn't even pertain to our discussion, since we're discussing the differences between the secular state and the religious state, not the differences between theists and atheists. But as for the numbers.
Let's see.
For atheism, I go with the highest possible estimates.
Maoism in China, indisputably atheist, was indirectly responsible for the starvation of 20-40 million Chinese citizens during the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" combined.
Nonsense, estimates are as high as 90 million for Mao, so there's lie number one.
His second point of intellectual dishonesty is this. He purposefully exclused the time element.
The atheists have killed (including a more correct estimate of Mao: 55 million, plus 10 million for Stalin, to make things more accurate) 641711 people per annum. (I realise this isn't very exact, but neither is the blog I am replying to).
Theists on the other hand have killed (with some adjustments, e.g. taking away the numbers from the war in Iraq, taking the numbers of Hitler who actually had disagreements with the church, especially since Hitler didn't launch WWII, so I'll cut that down and give you five million to be fair. Take out Genghis Khan too since he even said his wars were for power, not religion, so thats 40 million less) 639188 per annum.
You lose.
Not to mention the whole thing was very dubiously done, with almost all religious incidents counted but not all non religious ones. Waco being an example, that has nothing to do with religion. But what do you expect from a follower of Christopher Hitchens and somebody who runs a blog called The Teapot Atheist. How very impartial (by the way I'm not even mentioning his sources, or lack thereof).
Or to put it another way. if I divide the theist "murders" by the number of years and then divide it by the percentage of people that are religious to take account of the difference in numbers, I reach roughly 700 thousand.
Doing the same for the atheists, I reach roughly 1.6 million.
And that's without challenging any of his dubious numbers such as Mao or Stalin.
Once again, you lose.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
So the state attempts to use that which people favour to manipulate them. Anything new?
GilesStratton: To begin with this doesn't even pertain to our discussion, since we're discussing the differences between the secular state and the religious state, not the differences between theists and atheists. But as for the numbers. Let's see. For atheism, I go with the highest possible estimates. Maoism in China, indisputably atheist, was indirectly responsible for the starvation of 20-40 million Chinese citizens during the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" combined. Nonsense, estimates are as high as 90 million for Mao, so there's lie number one. His second point of intellectual dishonesty is this. He purposefully exclused the time element. The atheists have killed (including a more correct estimate of Mao: 55 million, plus 10 million for Stalin, to make things more accurate) 641711 people per annum. (I realise this isn't very exact, but neither is the blog I am replying to). Theists on the other hand have killed (with some adjustments, e.g. taking away the numbers from the war in Iraq, taking the numbers of Hitler who actually had disagreements with the church, especially since Hitler didn't launch WWII, so I'll cut that down and give you five million to be fair. Take out Genghis Khan too since he even said his wars were for power, not religion, so thats 40 million less) 639188 per annum. You lose. Not to mention the whole thing was very dubiously done, with almost all religious incidents counted but not all non religious ones. Waco being an example, that has nothing to do with religion. But what do you expect from a follower of Christopher Hitchens and somebody who runs a blog called The Teapot Atheist. How very impartial (by the way I'm not even mentioning his sources, or lack thereof).
You got some references big dog?
Again, even if you add your 90 million number it still isn't close. All of his sources are reliable - unless you want to debate the wikipedia as reliable thing (however you can use what each wiki references and make the same numbers.)
Edit:
Time element - really? So based on your time principal if it happened more recently and more quickly it is worse? I can see you haven't taken any advanced statistics so I will skip the references to problems with ordinary least squares regression models (quick, look it up and make a heteroskedastic reference!). Nor do you define a time period - I don't know where you get your statistical ideas from.
Also you must realize that the author left out the disputed, impossible to calculate and The Negligible (like Waco - which you cite).
You don't have to be impartial to do math correctly. You need to also read the whole thing so you dont cite things incorrectly. Sure, Hitler and his catholic buddies had nothing to do with WWII.
AndrewKemendo:You got some references big dog?
I wouldn't happen to be making blog posts about it now, would I?
AndrewKemendo:Again, even if you add your 90 million number it still isn't close. All of his sources are reliable - unless you want to debate the wikipedia as reliable thing (however you can use what each wiki references and make the same numbers.)
Oh yes, his sources as very reliable. For example, quoting Trotskyite war mongers who the (pseudo) intellectual bodyguard of the Neocons, who will make up any nonsense about religion if it gives him a new war. A great friend of liberty you have there.
Actually I did what you suggested, I went to Wikipedia and I looked at the sources there for the very first number. In fact, the number given there appears to be dubious since the original source states the he believes that the massive number of deaths could, and he believes would, be accounted for by the weakening of the state. And hence, their inability to count the number of citizens. Moreover, he claims most people lived on subsistance so it wouldn't take much disruption to cause them to die anyway, so religion cannot be accountable for all those deaths.
Stop lying.
And yes, if you adjust the numbers you'll see atheism loses no matter what, sorry.
Edit to my last one posted here:
Time element - really? So based on your time principal if it happened more recently and more quickly it is worse? I can see you haven't taken any advanced statistics so I will skip the references to problems with ordinary least squares regression models (quick, look it up and make a heteroskedastic reference!). Nor do you define a time period - I don't know where you get your statistical ideas from. Also you must realize that the author left out the disputed, impossible to calculate and The Negligible (like Waco - which you cite). You don't have to be impartial to do math correctly. You need to also read the whole thing so you dont cite things incorrectly. Sure, Hitler and his catholic buddies had nothing to do with WWII.
GilesStratton: I wouldn't happen to be making blog posts about it now, would I? Oh yes, his sources as very reliable. For example, quoting Trotskyite war mongers who the (pseudo) intellectual bodyguard of the Neocons, who will make up any nonsense about religion if it gives him a new war. A great friend of liberty you have there. Actually I did what you suggested, I went to Wikipedia and I looked at the sources there for the very first number. In fact, the number given there appears to be dubious since the original source states the he believes that the massive number of deaths could, and he believes would, be accounted for by the weakening of the state. And hence, their inability to count the number of citizens. Moreover, he claims most people lived on subsistance so it wouldn't take much disruption to cause them to die anyway, so religion cannot be accountable for all those deaths. Stop lying. And yes, if you adjust the numbers you'll see atheism loses no matter what, sorry.
You made a claim, back it up big man. Find those REAL numbers for us.
Simply dismissing all historians as part of some conspiracy is, as you claim the author to be, "intillectually dishonest."
Juan:It looks as if revealed religion is always involved when there's mass murder going on. The poster doesn't look as if created by pacifist Quakers eh ?
Leave it up to the athiest troll brigade to derail a thread.
Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Because if we are going to compare official athiest states vs Catholic states, as Giles shows, y'all lose every time. Personally, I would rather live in Austria-Hungary than 'officially athiest' Albania.
AndrewKemendo: You don't have to be impartial to do math correctly. You need to also read the whole thing so you dont cite things incorrectly. Sure, Hitler and his catholic buddies had nothing to do with WWII.
Riiiight, the 'Catholic' Hitler who imprisoned dissadent priests. Godwin's Law this early ?
AndrewKemendo:Time element - really? So based on your time principal if it happened more recently and more quickly it is worse? I can see you haven't taken any advanced statistics so I will skip the references to problems with ordinary least squares regression models (quick, look it up and make a heteroskedastic reference!). Nor do you define a time period - I don't know where you get your statistical ideas from.
Oh I get it, you're being condescending.
AndrewKemendo:Also you must realize that the author left out the disputed, impossible to calculate and The Negligible (like Waco - which you cite).
And yet he felt the need to mention it anyway, that's how generous he is.
AndrewKemendo:You don't have to be impartial to do math correctly. You need to also read the whole thing so you dont cite things incorrectly. Sure, Hitler and his catholic buddies had nothing to do with WWII.
Great Britain and France started WWII, you should know that if you know anything about history. Much less the libertarian perspective on WWII. And by the way, Hitler broke away from Catholic church, although before that he did make promises that he would not - he just broke them.
AndrewKemendo:Time element - really? So based on your time principal if it happened more recently and more quickly it is worse?
Now, now, you might want to respond to things that I actually said. It helps.
AndrewKemendo:Nor do you define a time period - I don't know where you get your statistical ideas from.
My econometrics and statistics textbooks and teachers, usually. As I said, I'm not going to bother doing things properly in response to a poorly done, unscientific blog post such as that.
AndrewKemendo:You made a claim, back it up big man. Find those REAL numbers for us.
What claim have I made? That the original blog post is dishonest. Since he claims to be using the larger estimates in regards to atheism, and then uses an estimate for Mao that happens to be under half of the highest.
AndrewKemendo:Simply dismissing all historians as part of some conspiracy is, as you claim the author to be, "intillectually dishonest."
Once again, it helps to respond that what I'm saying. Not what you're imagining that I'm saying. As for your quip about regression models, last time I checked regression models cannot establish causality, or at least my textbook seems to think so. Which is where the point lies really isn't it? He can claims that religion causes these deaths. When, really, any libertarian would quickly realise that these deaths had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with power. I'll happily say the same for the atheist states by the way.
Any libertarian, that is, who isn't going on an ad hoc rant. Take your ramblings elsewhere.
sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Because if we are going to compare official athiest states vs Catholic states, as Giles shows, y'all lose every time. Personally, I would rather live in Austria-Hungary than 'officially athiest' Albania.
Exactly.
Of course, in order to counter this Andrew posts "facts", this being on an Austrian Economics forum, funnily enough. Better yet one owned by a Catholic.
sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries?
Man you are good at sidestepping issues:
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:Also you must realize that the author left out the disputed, impossible to calculate and The Negligible (like Waco - which you cite). And yet he felt the need to mention it anyway, that's how generous he is.
So recant your accusation that the numbers were used falsely, seeing as they weren't used at all, instead of making a snide remark and dodging the issue.
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:You don't have to be impartial to do math correctly. You need to also read the whole thing so you dont cite things incorrectly. Sure, Hitler and his catholic buddies had nothing to do with WWII. Great Britain and France started WWII, you should know that if you know anything about history. Much less the libertarian perspective on WWII. And by the way, Hitler broke away from Catholic church, although before that he did make promises that he would not - he just broke them.
I would agree that Britain goaded the war but to say that they started it is quite a long stretch. I think Pat Buchanan's - Churchill Hitler and the unnecessary war does well to describe the facts of the War - and Hitler was the prime mover. How you can take Hitler's influence out of WWII is frankly astonishing.
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:You made a claim, back it up big man. Find those REAL numbers for us. What claim have I made? That the original blog post is dishonest. Since he claims to be using the larger estimates in regards to atheism, and then uses an estimate for Mao that happens to be under half of the highest.
You claimed 90 million - let's see some backing. Just saying it is dishonest doesn't mean anything without some references.
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:Simply dismissing all historians as part of some conspiracy is, as you claim the author to be, "intillectually dishonest." Once again, it helps to respond that what I'm saying. Not what you're imagining that I'm saying. As for your quip about regression models, last time I checked regression models cannot establish causality, or at least my textbook seems to think so. Which is where the point lies really isn't it? He can claims that religion causes these deaths. When, really, any libertarian would quickly realise that these deaths had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with power. I'll happily say the same for the atheist states by the way. Any libertarian, that is, who isn't going on an ad hoc rant. Take your ramblings elsewhere.
None are saying that these death tolls are alone the result of religion but simply that religious states kill measures more than secular ones.
Your conservative BS wrapped in a bible as some moral authority has nothing to do with Anarchism and your statements that religious nations are more peaceful and tolerant than secular ones is ridiculous on its face and has no historical basis.
You wont address the issues head on and you continually try to dodge the issue as though it is a debate tactic - you cannot or will not dispute my reference on any solid grounds.
Juan: sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Sicsemper, your question is interesting...Maybe I need to refresh your memory ? You classified Lichtenstein as 'libertarian' and pointed out that it's a catholic monarchy. It seems as if you brought revealed religion into the picture ? And now you complain about the turn the thread has taken ? Tsk tsk.
No, if you go back and read my post I simply answered the OP's original question: that IMO, Liechtenstein was 'most libertarian' of all current states. It being Catholic is irellevant. If it instead was a Protestant monarchy and still had the same laws, I would still call it the 'most libertarian'. Or if it had no monarchy.
Juan: sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Sicsemper, your question is interesting...Maybe I need to refresh your memory ? You classified Lichtenstein as 'libertarian' and pointed out that it's a catholic monarchy.
That isn't a casus bello for hijacking a thread.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
AndrewKemendo: None are saying that these death tolls are alone the result of religion but simply that religious states kill measures more than secular ones. ....
None are saying that these death tolls are alone the result of religion but simply that religious states kill measures more than secular ones. ....
The monstrous killings of the the 20th century were all done by officially 'secular' or even 'athiest' states. Or does the fact that most Americans remain Christian enough for you to classify it as 'religious'?
laminustacitus: Juan: sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Sicsemper, your question is interesting...Maybe I need to refresh your memory ? You classified Lichtenstein as 'libertarian' and pointed out that it's a catholic monarchy. That isn't a casus bello for hijacking a thread.
To Juan, saying 'thank God!' in a thread is casus belli for hijacking.
AndrewKemendo:Man you are good at sidestepping issues:
Funny, I remember this being a response to my post about the fact that secular states are worse than religious states. You then seemed to shift the goalposts about who killed more theists or atheists.
People in glass houses...
AndrewKemendo:So recant your accusation that the numbers were used falsely, seeing as they weren't used at all, instead of making a snide remark and dodging the issue.
My point was that he was being misleading, which he was
AndrewKemendo:I would agree that Britain goaded the war but to say that they started it is quite a long stretch. I think Pat Buchanan's - Churchill Hitler and the unnecessary war does well to describe the facts of the War - and Hitler was the prime mover. How you can take Hitler's influence out of WWII is frankly astonishing.
That's a strawman.
AndrewKemendo:You claimed 90 million - let's see some backing. Just saying it is dishonest doesn't mean anything without some references.
Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_The_Unknown_Story#Number_of_deaths_under_Mao
The book opens with the sentence "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70,000,000 deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader." Chang and Halliday claim that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, though Chang and Halliday's estimate is one of the highest. Sinologist Stuart Schram, in a review of the book, noted that "the exact figure... has been estimated by well-informed writers at between 40 and 70 million"
Slightly different to h is 20 - 40 million.
Or: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616
Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung's policies and actions led to the deaths of nearly 77 million of his countrymen, surpassing those killed by Nazi Party founder Adolf Hitler and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin.
There's 80, million, twice his top estimate.
AndrewKemendo:None are saying that these death tolls are alone the result of religion but simply that religious states kill measures more than secular ones.
No that's not what he's saying. Since the USA is a secular state and yet he counts the Iraq war under religious. Same applies for Nazi Germany.
AndrewKemendo:Your conservative BS wrapped in a bible as some moral authority has nothing to do with Anarchism and your statements that religious nations are more peaceful and tolerant than secular ones is ridiculous on its face and has no historical basis.
But it does, that's the thing. As much as it may offend your left liberal atheist sensibilities, the 20th C was the bloodiest in all of history. It also just so happened to be the first century in which we really saw the rise of the secular state.
You can stop lying anytime now. Or else show where I've done this.
sicsempertyrannis: laminustacitus: Juan: sicsempertyrannis:Juan, what does that have to do with 'libertarian' countries? Sicsemper, your question is interesting...Maybe I need to refresh your memory ? You classified Lichtenstein as 'libertarian' and pointed out that it's a catholic monarchy. That isn't a casus bello for hijacking a thread. To Juan, saying 'thank God!' in a thread is casus belli for hijacking.
Moreover, referring to a car as "black" will get you labelled a bigot by Juan. The car is "Africa American".
By the way the theory I am presenting here is analogous to Hoppe's point that a monarch will defend property rights, since they protect the status of his property.
GilesStratton:Moreover, referring to a car as "black" will get you labelled a bigot by Juan. The car is "Africa American".
And this is the equivalent of pouring gasoline all over a thread, and letting Juan's responce light the fire.
Byzantine:Yet another libertarian argument against immigration: the government isn't able to artificially enlarge the tax base, interpersonal conflict is minimized, and people who want to make the State irrelevant to their lives have enough space to do so.
Yet, there is still the need to justify not letting someone from outside immigrate, let alone the question of how long away is the "outside."
How would it not logically follow that the number of people killed under a regime would be a basis for stating that a state is worse? This is mind-boggling.
As is obvious from your reply - you throw numbers out there at random which have no basis; 90 and 70 are big differences. That claim is disputed even within your reference! Even conceding that, it doesn't make a difference in the overall.
Additionally, you claim (causally I might add) that this century is the bloodiest without reference as correlating with the secularization of states, as if that were a truer measure. if anything were ever a straw man - your favorite term - this would be one.
You make claim that religious nations are more free - then protest when i take issue as though I have changed the subject. You make false attacks as though Bush's claim that:
he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians
is not blatantly theist, yet call me a liar. Your capacity for reasonable debate has more than presented itself on this forum and I am not alone when I say that it is sophomoric. This debate is going no where so there is nothing left to say other than - peace be with you.
laminustacitus:That isn't a casus bello for hijacking a thread.
No, if you go back and read my post I simply answered the OP's original question: that IMO, Liechtenstein was 'most libertarian' of all current states. It being Catholic is irellevant.
The monstrous killings of the the 20th century were all done by officially 'secular' or even 'athiest' states.
AndrewKemendo:How would it not logically follow that the number of people killed under a regime would be a basis for stating that a state is worse? This is mind-boggling.
When did I contest that?
AndrewKemendo:As is obvious from your reply - you throw numbers out there at random which have no basis; 90 and 70 are big differences. That claim is disputed even within your reference! Even conceding that, it doesn't make a difference in the overall.
And yet the difference between 70 and 90 is not so great as that between 70 and 20 or even 70 and 40.
AndrewKemendo:Additionally, you claim (causally I might add) that this century is the bloodiest without reference as correlating with the secularization of states, as if that were a truer measure. if anything were ever a straw man - your favorite term - this would be one.
You're misusing my favourite term. And no, my point was that in the chance they've been given, your beloved secular states have done a great deal of damage. Far more than Czarist Russia or the Austro Hungarian monarchy did, that is for sure.
AndrewKemendo:is not blatantly theist, yet call me a liar. Your capacity for reasonable debate has more than presented itself on this forum and I am not alone when I say that it is sophomoric. This debate is going no where so there is nothing left to say other than - peace be with you.
No, my point was that the USA is a secular state. It's not difficult, really.
You were one the one who brought up the statistics, now that your claim has been evicerated you change your tactics. How open-minded of you.
Its about time you concede that his numbers are the most accurate before you dig yourself an even deeper hole.
Its pretty much implied that as a state becomes more secular that much of the emphasis placed on religion is shifted towards being put on the state, and history does prove this to be a valid statement.
AndrewKemendo: You make claim that religious nations are more free - then protest when i take issue as though I have changed the subject. You make false attacks as though Bush's claim that: he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians is not blatantly theist, yet call me a liar.
is not blatantly theist, yet call me a liar.
You're drawing coorelations where they can't be drawn for American foreign policy is not dictated by theological concepts. What Bush said was nothing but rhetoric, and it can be understood only as such. There were actual reasons for which Bush decided to invade Iraq, claiming that he was doing "God's will" is nothing but obfuscating what he did in the eyes of the religious right.
Byzantine:Rather, the question is which country more closely approaches the ideal. New Zealand, with its low population density, appears to more closely approach that ideal for the reasons I noted.
Alas, using the term "another libertarian argument against immigration" means that you take New Zeland's situation to support your ideal immigration policy, not the other way around.
Juan:False. America, Western Europe and Russia were and are choke full of christians who claim to believe in universal love. Except when it's the time to firebomb defenseless civilians.
I wouldn't bet anything on how much the American people actually follow the Christian ideal; instead they just claim to. Thus their actions speak not of the Christian ideal, but their own failure to live up to it.
Byzantine: But if we cram a bunch of people in with the Samoans and Anglo's who sparsely populate that rugged island, then it's no longer New Zealand and it's no longer as free, isn't it?
But if we cram a bunch of people in with the Samoans and Anglo's who sparsely populate that rugged island, then it's no longer New Zealand and it's no longer as free, isn't it?
First of all, who get's to define what is "New Zealand", is it a geographical expression, a cultura one, or perhaps a mixture of both? Second of all, why would it automatically be "less free"?
Two points:
(1) Although Hitler always respected the Catholic church, no, he was not a Catholic, and indeed, only manipulated the church for his purposes, despising it as an ultra-montane authority he couldn't control.
(2) Blaming Britain and France for starting the Second World War is disingenuous. Define Second World War. Germany annexed Austria, then having been giving the Sudetenland annexed Bohemia and Moravia. After this war seemed inevitable as she had undoubtedly violated the sovereignty of an independent nation, even though there were very few ethnic Germans there; her quasi-justifications had expired. Then she blitzkrieged Poland. By late 1939 she was ghetto-ising Poland's Jews. Hitler, while his goals were indubitably eastern, had designs on the pacification of France, Romanian oil, the annexation of the Balkans &c. Should Britain and France have intervened? While I would personally have not intervened, on basic principles, I can see why the British and French intervened, and surely we can blame Hitler's expansionistic designs rather than Britain or France's will to preserve some sort of balance and peace in Europe.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
GilesStratton:You're misusing my favourite term. And no, my point was that in the chance they've been given, your beloved secular states have done a great deal of damage. Far more than Czarist Russia or the Austro Hungarian monarchy did, that is for sure.
While I agree with you that they have done a great deal of damage, one also has to look at the fact that Czarist Russia and the Austro Hungarian monarchies didn't possess the technology of wholesale slaughter like the secular states did, either. We cannot say that had the Czar and other monarchies had large bombs, they wouldn't have used them in the same manner as a secular state has.
I agree with Hoppe's conclusions about monarchy v. democracy, but I don't think the level of technology should be ignored here.
Thedesolateone: Two points: (1) Although Hitler always respected the Catholic church, no, he was not a Catholic, and indeed, only manipulated the church for his purposes, despising it as an ultra-montane authority he couldn't control.
Yeah. I don't know how anyone can say Hitler had any sort of fondness for the Christian religion. Afterall, the guy denounced it as "weak willed" and "the bastard child of the Jews" in his personal writings. He used the religions of the time as a springboard for his populist movement.
Except both France and Britian went on the offensive first. Hitler did not even concern himself with Western Europe until after they intervened. I believe he made it pretty clear that his goal was to return Germany's borders to the pre-WWI status (the Russians were after the same kind of deal with the Eastern territories). Sure, he had no justification in his expansionism, but then again France and Britian really had no justification in intervening either. Not to mention the British were the first to use "total war" and target "strategic" civilian areas in bombing raids....
sirmonty:While I agree with you that they have done a great deal of damage, one also has to look at the fact that Czarist Russia and the Austro Hungarian monarchies didn't possess the technology of wholesale slaughter like the secular states did, either. We cannot say that had the Czar and other monarchies had large bombs, they wouldn't have used them in the same manner as a secular state has.
I think it goes both ways though. Sure, they didn't have the technology to kill people to the same extent that we do now. But on the other hand they also would have been able to cover up any killings far easier than is possible today. Moreover, people then were far poorer than today, starvation would have been far easier.
sirmonty: I believe he made it pretty clear that his goal was to return Germany's borders to the pre-WWI status (the Russians were after the same kind of deal with the Eastern territories).
Hitler wanted peace with GB, accordingly, he never would have touched France. Instead Great Britain, France and the USA decided to pave the way for Stalin's entry into Europe.
GilesStratton:I think it goes both ways though. Sure, they didn't have the technology to kill people to the same extent that we do now. But on the other hand they also would have been able to cover up any killings far easier than is possible today. Moreover, people then were far poorer than today, starvation would have been far easier.
Sure. I was just pointing out that it is rather hard to get any sort of accurate comparison due to the ever changing world of technology and such. I am not defending secular/democratic states by any means.
Well the US much later, but yes.