Laughing Man: Spideynw:Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders? Why the arbitrary numbers?
Spideynw:Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders?
Why the arbitrary numbers?
Because the United States is the only country in the world that incarcerates 1% of its population, let alone 5%. The U.S. government incarcerates something like twice as many of its population, per capita, then the next closest government.
Laughing Man:And why are you asking for an example in which government admits it kills its own citizens?
Because if the government kills those committing civil disobedience in secret, then the people will not fear the government. If the people do not fear the government, and those disobeying appear to be getting away with it, then everyone else will join in as well. If your neighbor is not paying taxes, and apparently getting away with it, then why would you keep paying taxes? State power is based on fear.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:The real question is, how many are incarcerated for at least a year?
Spideynw:5% of the population would still be ~7 times the current number of people jailed/imprisoned in a year. That is still a hell of a lot more than are currently in prison, and again, they are generally the poorest of the population.
Spideynw:Because the United States is the only country in the world that incarcerates 1% of its population, let alone 5%. The U.S. government incarcerates something like twice as many of its population, per capita, then the next closest government.
Ok, some people belong in prison and some don't. Perhaps you can tell me why prison inmates have to deal with democide.
Spideynw:Because if the government kills those committing civil disobedience in secret, then the people will not fear the government.
Or if they write these victims off as traitors.
Spideynw:If the people do not fear the government, and those disobeying appear to be getting away with it, then everyone else will join in as well.
Its a scary concept but some people like paying taxes, some nationalists like having a bold government.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Snowflake:Well, I was saying that your figure of 1.5 million is wrong too. Even check your own links.
Your link was a primary source. So no, my figure was correct.
I was looking for articles just talking about the cost of imprisoning people and showing that those imprisoned are mostly poor. I was not sure exactly what you wanted evidence for.
Snowflake:I think that the statistics you present are anecdotal and don't reflect the trend of steadily growing prison populations. Pardoning inmates due to overcrowding in this one jurisdiction in cali does not necessarily reflect the whole system.
It has taken how long to get to ~1% of the population? And that being the poorest of the population, in the wealthiest country in the world (measured by GDP).
Spideynw:I was not sure exactly what you wanted evidence for.
Spideynw:It has taken how long to get to ~1% of the population? And that being the poorest of the population, in the wealthiest country in the world (measured by GDP).
Spideynw:State power is based on fear.
Laughing Man:Ok, some people belong in prison and some don't. Perhaps you can tell me why prison inmates have to deal with democide.
I don't understand your question. Could you be more specific?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Because if the government kills those committing civil disobedience in secret, then the people will not fear the government. Or if they write these victims off as traitors.
Which means it would not be in secret. And I do not know of anyone that would be OK with killing their neighbors for not paying taxes. You sound like socialists. They think humans are evil and need to have wealth redistributed and that without government people would kill each other en mass. Maybe you are on the wrong forum?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:If the people do not fear the government, and those disobeying appear to be getting away with it, then everyone else will join in as well. Its a scary concept but some people like paying taxes, some nationalists like having a bold government.
And I would argue that no one would pay taxes if there were no threat behind it, because no one will pay for someone else to have a free ride on his or her dime.
Snowflake: Spideynw:I was not sure exactly what you wanted evidence for. Evidence of salami theory: that the state can get more oppressive by orders of magnitude if it is done slowly enough.
Would you not agree that there is a point at which the state cannot get more oppressive? Would you not agree that for the state to continue, it requires support of the population? If so, how could it have support of the population if it is imprisoning so many peaceful, productive people?
Spideynw:Would you not agree that there is a point at which the state cannot get more oppressive? Would you not agree that for the state to continue, it requires support of the population?
theory.
Spideynw:I don't understand your question. Could you be more specific?
Why did you take the conversation from democide to prison inmates?
Spideynw:And I do not know of anyone that would be OK with killing their neighbors for not paying taxes
Several years ago some people were ok with beating up anyone who looked like a Muslim in this country. Now they are treated with the utmost suspension and hatred by many people within this state. And this is simple religion.
Spideynw:You sound like socialists.
Blast! You've discovered my secret plot to destroy the Mises institute. I was cleverly working in the shadows with my socialist brethren, hoping to convert all the members here to my unholy ideology. Foiled by a mastermind!
Spideynw:They think humans are evil and need to have wealth redistributed and that without government people would kill each other en mass.
And it seems like you are stuck in the Rousseauian theory that everyone is benevolent and only institutions are evil. I don't think all humans are evil, nor do I think they are all benevolent. Humans are that which they make themselves to be.
Spideynw:And I would argue that no one would pay taxes if there were no threat behind it, because no one will pay for someone else to have a free ride on his or her dime.
I think socialists and certain progressives would still pay taxes, perhaps even some neoconservatives and small government libertarians. Perhaps the percentages would fluctuate but there are people who are willing to pay government for some service because they deem it necessary. I of course would not give the government another dime and I think once government loses its monopoly then it becomes a 'club' or business so to speak.
Laughing Man:Why did you take the conversation from democide to prison inmates?
Because there is no evidence of governments slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And I do not know of anyone that would be OK with killing their neighbors for not paying taxes Several years ago some people were ok with beating up anyone who looked like a Muslim in this country.
Several years ago some people were ok with beating up anyone who looked like a Muslim in this country.
But not with killing them right? Maybe a few extremist white trash, but not the vast majority of the population...
Laughing Man:Now they are treated with the utmost suspension and hatred by many people within this state. And this is simple religion.
Simple religion?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:They think humans are evil and need to have wealth redistributed and that without government people would kill each other en mass. And it seems like you are stuck in the Rousseauian theory that everyone is benevolent and only institutions are evil.
And it seems like you are stuck in the Rousseauian theory that everyone is benevolent and only institutions are evil.
Really? How? Have you not seen how I have said that I think the government would use aggression against those engaging in civil disobedience?
Laughing Man:I don't think all humans are evil, nor do I think they are all benevolent. Humans are that which they make themselves to be.
Do you think they would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And I would argue that no one would pay taxes if there were no threat behind it, because no one will pay for someone else to have a free ride on his or her dime. I think socialists and certain progressives would still pay taxes,
I think socialists and certain progressives would still pay taxes,
So you think people would keep paying for an over-priced piece of shit in the market place, even though the competition is offering a far superior product at a far lower price?
Spideynw:Because there is no evidence of governments slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance.
Is this a joke?
Spideynw:But not with killing them right? Maybe a few extremist white trash, but not the vast majority of the population...
Because it would only be wrong if they killed them?
Spideynw:Simple religion
Yes Islam is a pretty nonchalant. They don't drink virgin blood or possess the ability to rip people's hearts out.
Spideynw:Really? How? Have you not seen how I have said that I think the government would use aggression against those engaging in civil disobedience?
It's in the first quote I addressed. You said "There is no evidence of government slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance." Now either you conflate civil disobedience with violent revolution [ which it is technically not ] or you are being dishonest.
Spideynw:Do you think they would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
They wouldn't kill them. That's obviously the government's job.
Spideynw:So you think people would keep paying for an over-priced piece of shit in the market place, even though the competition is offering a far superior product at a far lower price?
Absolutely. Man is not homo economicus. We do not instantly search out for the lowest price and thus that is our choice. Perhaps I have a love for some mom and pop shop down the road who sell overpriced crappy goods but I shop there because I really like the cashier.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:So you think people would keep paying for an over-priced piece of shit in the market place, even though the competition is offering a far superior product at a far lower price? Absolutely. Man is not homo economicus. We do not instantly search out for the lowest price and thus that is our choice. Perhaps I have a love for some mom and pop shop down the road who sell overpriced crappy goods but I shop there because I really like the cashier.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Because there is no evidence of governments slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance. Is this a joke?
No. Do you have evidence of governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:But not with killing them right? Maybe a few extremist white trash, but not the vast majority of the population... Because it would only be wrong if they killed them?
No, because if they do not kill the non-cooperators, then it will cost them too much to imprison them, and they will go out of business.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Simple religion? Yes Islam is a pretty nonchalant. They don't drink virgin blood or possess the ability to rip people's hearts out.
Spideynw:Simple religion?
No, I am asking if you think religion is not a big deal to people?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Really? How? Have you not seen how I have said that I think the government would use aggression against those engaging in civil disobedience? It's in the first quote I addressed. You said "There is no evidence of government slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance." Now either you conflate civil disobedience with violent revolution [ which it is technically not ] or you are being dishonest.
Huh? What does this have to do with accusing me of thinking people would not be aggressive? I said the government would not slaughter its population. That is not the same as me saying the government would not be aggressive. I would consider imprisonment aggressive.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Do you think they would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes? They wouldn't kill them. That's obviously the government's job.
You think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
Then what is the point of producing a better/cheaper product if people will not choose your product over the competition?
Spideynw: Libertarian_for_Life: Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union". That is because the South attacked the North. Again, using aggression against the state does not work. The only thing history has shown to work is non-violent, non-cooperation.
Libertarian_for_Life: Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
That is because the South attacked the North. Again, using aggression against the state does not work. The only thing history has shown to work is non-violent, non-cooperation.
Yeah, that's what the state-controlled public schools tell us, but the South really wanted peace. Like I said:
"All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
Lincoln goaded the South into attacking first at Fort Sumter. Lincoln then used this as justification because the South had "fired the first shot" (most newspapers of the time were well aware of this and were in outrage). The Confederacy wanted nothing but peace from start to end. Even when the South was winning, they offered peace meetings with Lincoln, but Lincoln refused all of them. Who were the real aggressors?
Lincoln completely convinced the public that southerners were aggressive radicals, when in reality they only wanted peaceful secession which Lincoln would not allow (which was clearly a constitutional right).
I always love this quote by Lincoln in his earlier political career:
""Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit" - Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848
Abraham Lincoln was the greatest master manipulator of American history, he did what any other president would and will do in order to preserve their tax base. No morality, no mercy.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Stranger: However, it is not morally correct to overthrow a state only to establish your own state in its place. That is what results in death and devastation.
However, it is not morally correct to overthrow a state only to establish your own state in its place. That is what results in death and devastation.
liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Let's say somebody from the outside has the means to overthrow it without endangering innocents. And while this is an interesting mind puzzle, it is not any reflection of reality. Even if 100% of the people in Iraq empowered America to remove Saddam...
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Let's say somebody from the outside has the means to overthrow it without endangering innocents.
And while this is an interesting mind puzzle, it is not any reflection of reality. Even if 100% of the people in Iraq empowered America to remove Saddam...
Spideynw:That is because the South attacked the North.
Libertarian_for_Life:Yeah, that's what the state-controlled public schools tell us,
No, that is a fact of history.
I don't disagree that the South wanted peace. What I disagree with is the way they went about trying to get it. They attacked one of the North's bases. Violence against the state will always bring down the full wrath of the state, because it is easy for the state to then justify the murder. If the Confederate government had not attacked one of the North's bases, and instead would have just refused to obey the U.S. government, I believe they would have had peace.
Spideynw: Spideynw:That is because the South attacked the North. Libertarian_for_Life:Yeah, that's what the state-controlled public schools tell us, No, that is a fact of history. I don't disagree that the South wanted peace. What I disagree with is the way they went about trying to get it. They attacked one of the North's bases. Violence against the state will always bring down the full wrath of the state, because it is easy for the state to then justify the murder. If the Confederate government had not attacked one of the North's bases, and instead would have just refused to obey the U.S. government, I believe they would have had peace.
Yeah, the South did attack the North, I really didn't mean to argue that (although my post sounds like it).
Do you think that it would have been impossible for Lincoln to justify doing the same thing if the South did not attack? The public was well aware of the political implications of Fort Sumter and that Lincoln used it as an excuse to start war (many people speaking out against the action were sent to prison without trial).
If the South had refused to bring up arms and instead stopped paying taxes, then Lincoln would have started sending them to prison and killing them without a trial (probably justifying it by calling them greedy for not paying their fair share of public expense, Northerners already had a dislike for Southerners anyways). Lincoln did this to an estimated 13,000 political opponents of his in the North (including newspaper editors, elected officals, and even Congressmen), and he didn't even have any excuses, he just threw them in jail. He didn't need to imprison ALL of his opposition, just enough to get his point across and install fear, at which he was successful, people were thrown more and more into passive dissent. What would have stopped him from doing this in the South if they decided to disobey taxes? At least then he would have had a reason to justify throwing them in jail.
In theory, you could say it would have amassed public outrage, which it had in the North when he threw Congressmen in jail, but this was put down by Lincoln's insane use of military force. Certainly there was massive passive (lol) dissent, but Lincoln cared not.
After a while of imprisonment and executions, how much willpower would have been left in a "peaceful" solution to secession? The Southerners would have either gave up or brought up arms.
I'm just saying, I think you underestimate how much the State can get away with. I believe Lincoln could have easily justified (or at least suppressed the opposition of) the same acts even if the South never raised arms. Sure you could say that 5% of the population that had absolutely no fear whatsoever might be able to take down government, but we are humans, I wouldn't take a bullet for the hope that all of my comrades will do the same. This is the same thing that happened to opposition of the war in the North, the fear was installed and it conquered.
Snowflake:Even if agents dont always seek out the lowest dollar price, they always seek out the lowest subjective price, that is how expensive is information in terms of time/money/effort etc and how are these parameters subjectively valued?
Well isn't dollar price the subjective price? What the value of the good is in terms of monetary units?
Snowflake: LM I think this is a lost cause. I mean, he's flat out ignored the civil war example, hitler, stalin and mao's violation of civil liberties, as well as my very own excellent theory of salamis. I think we can agree most of what we're on now is tangential. I tried to bring it back to the core argument but he just doesn't want to budge...
Spidey isn't a 'lost cause' Let's not lose ourselves in argument. I would like to hear more about this salami theory though because I saw a picture of salami and that made me scratch my head.
Spideynw:Do you have evidence of governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population?
The Cultural Revolution and the Anti-Rightist campaigns in Communist China are the first things that come to my mind. I have some recommendations on literature of that period if you would like them.
Spideynw:No, because if they do not kill the non-cooperators, then it will cost them too much to imprison them, and they will go out of business.
Wait, I am confused now. If governments didn't kill non-cooperators then they would have to suffer bankruptcy from imprisoning them...doesn't that then make them more inclined to kill non-cooperators thereby contradicting your previous statement that there is no evidence of large scale democide?
Spideynw:No, I am asking if you think religion is not a big deal to people?
To some people it is and to others it isn't.
Spideynw:I said the government would not slaughter its population.
Well I think Robert Higgs in one of his articles states that there were 170 million deaths by government from 1900 to 1980's [ I think it was the 80's ] and these deaths were not war causalities. One should wonder how all these people died. Do you have an opinion on their deaths?
Spideynw: You think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
They've killed for less. Apparently 'cults' are horrible menaces to the security of the US.
Spideynw: Then what is the point of producing a better/cheaper product if people will not choose your product over the competition?
This isn't some all or nothing question. Not all are willing to pay high prices and not all are going to get the cheapest. Economics tends towards equilibrium, it never achieves it.
Laughing Man:Well isn't dollar price the subjective price? What the value of the good is in terms of monetary units?
Laughing Man:I would like to hear more about this salami theory though because I saw a picture of salami and that made me scratch my head.
Idk why its called salami theory. I never slice my salami as thinly as possible...
Lets take at look at the USSRs death toll seeing as we're talking about the horrors of the state and whether or not it deserves to be treated as invalid. Given, I'm using Wikipedia as a quick source for the sake of quickness.
"...He asserts that Soviet policies greatly exacerbated the famine's death toll (such as the use of torture and execution to extract grain (see Law of Spikelets), with 1.8 million tonnes of it being exported during the height of the starvation - enough to feed 5 million people for one year, the use of force to prevent starving peasants from fleeing the worst affected areas, and the refusal to import grain or secure international humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering) and that Stalin intended to use the starvation as a cheap and efficient means (as opposed to deportations and shootings) to kill off those deemed to be "counterrevolutionaries," "idlers," and "thieves," but not to annihilate the Ukrainian peasantry as a whole. He also claims that, while this is not the only Soviet genocide (e.g. The Polish operation of the NKVD), it is the worst in terms of mass casualties.[53]
Current estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.2 million[54][55] to 4 to 5 million.[56"
"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[68] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed."
"After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[71]
The official Soviet archival records do not contain comprehensive figures for some categories of victims, such as the those of ethnic deportations or of German population transfers in the aftermath of WWII.[72] Other notable exclusions from NKVD data on repression deaths include the Katyn massacre, other killings in the newly occupied areas, and the mass shootings of Red Army personnel (deserters and so-called deserters) in 1941. Also, the official statistics on Gulag mortality exclude deaths of prisoners taking place shortly after their release but which resulted from the harsh treatment in the camps.[73] Some historians also believe the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities to be unreliable and incomplete.[74][75] In addition to failures regarding comprehensive recordings, as one additional example, Robert Gellately and Simon Sebag-Montefiore argue the many suspects beaten and tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not to have been counted amongst the executed.[8][76]"
"Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million[2] were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.[40]
Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations, rightly or wrongly. Individual circumstances of those spending time in German-occupied territories were not examined.[41] After the brief Nazi occupation of the Caucasus, the entire population of five of the small highland peoples and the Crimean Tatars – more than a million people in total – were deported without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions.[41]
During Stalin's rule the following ethnic groups were deported completely or partially: Ukrainians, Poles, Koreans, Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Finns, Bulgarians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Jews. Large numbers of Kulaks, regardless of their nationality, were resettled to Siberia and Central Asia. Deportations took place in appalling conditions, often by cattle truck, and hundreds of thousands of deportees died en route.[2] Those who survived were forced to work without pay in the labour camps. Many of the deportees died of hunger or other conditions."
"
Stalin, as head of the Politburo consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party, justified as an attempt to expel 'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'.[16][17] Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps, to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.[16][18][19]
In the 1930s, Stalin apparently became increasingly worried about the growing popularity of Sergei Kirov. At the 1934 Party Congress where the vote for the new Central Committee was held, Kirov received only three negative votes, the fewest of any candidate, while Stalin received 1,108 negative votes.[20] After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zioviev.[21] The investigations and trials expanded.[22] Stalin passed a new law on "terrorist organizations and terrorist acts", which were to be investigated for no more than ten days, with no prosecution, defense attorneys or appeals, followed by a sentence to be executed "quickly."[23]
Thereafter, several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. Article 58 of the legal code, listing prohibited anti-Soviet activities as counterrevolutionary crime was applied in the broadest manner.[24] The flimsiest pretexts were often enough to brand someone an "enemy of the people," starting the cycle of public persecution and abuse, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD with sentencing carried out within 24 hours.[23]
Many military leaders were convicted of treason, and a large scale purging of Red Army officers followed.[26] The repression of so many formerly high-ranking revolutionaries and party members led Leon Trotsky to claim that a "river of blood" separated Stalin's regime from that of Lenin.[27] In August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico, where he had lived in exile since January 1937; this eliminated the last of Stalin's opponents among the former Party leadership.[28] The only three "Old Bolsheviks" (Lenin's Politburo) that remained were Stalin, Mikhail Kalinin, and Chairman of Sovnarkom Vyacheslav Molotov.
Mass operations of the NKVD also targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities) such as Poles, ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc. A total of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested and 247,157 (110,000 Poles) were executed.[8] Many Americans who had emigrated to the Soviet Union during the worst of the Great Depression were executed; others were sent to prison camps or gulags.[29] Concurrent with the purges, efforts were made to rewrite the history in Soviet textbooks and other propaganda materials. Notable people executed by NKVD were removed from the texts and photographs as though they never existed. Gradually, the history of revolution was transformed to a story about just two key characters: Lenin and Stalin.
In light of revelations from the Soviet archives, historians now estimate that nearly 700,000 people (353,074 in 1937 and 328,612 in 1938) were executed in the course of the terror,[30] with the great mass of victims being "ordinary" Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, homemakers, teachers, priests, musicians, soldiers, pensioners, ballerinas, beggars.[31][32] Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable.[33][34][35][36] For example, Robert Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[37]
At the time, while reviewing a list of people to be shot, Stalin reportedly muttered to no one in particular: "Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years time? No one."[38] In addition, Stalin dispatched a contingent of NKVD operatives to Mongolia, established a Mongolian version of the NKVD troika and unleashed a bloody purge in which tens of thousands were executed as 'Japanese Spies.' Mongolian ruler Khorloogiin Choibalsan closely followed Stalin's lead.[39]""
"In Hungary, when the Soviets installed a communist government, Mátyás Rákosi, who described himself as "Stalin's best Hungarian disciple"[188] and "Stalin's best pupil",[189] took power. Rákosi employed "salami tactics", slicing up these enemies like pieces of salami,[190] to battle the initial postwar political majority ready to establish a democracy.[191] Rákosi, employed Stalinist political and economic programs, and was dubbed the “bald murderer” for establishing one of the harshest dictatorships in Europe.[191][192] Approximately 350,000 Hungarian officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956.[191]"
Only that last one is post-WWII. The totals for soviet caused deaths it estimated all the way up to 60 million. Can anybody, with this in mind, call the USSR anything more then a monstrous outlaw worthy of being put down?
"Thats no law, thats just a sword. Happens I got one too"
Alexander: Only that last one is post-WWII. The totals for soviet caused deaths it estimated all the way up to 60 million. Can anybody, with this in mind, call the USSR anything more then a monstrous outlaw worthy of being put down?
Appeal to emotion.
lol,
its the fallacy of appeal to a persons humanity on matters of everyday common sense morality!
we are not in the realms of clinical high-theoretic argument here.....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Do you have evidence of governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population? The Cultural Revolution and the Anti-Rightist campaigns in Communist China are the first things that come to my mind. I have some recommendations on literature of that period if you would like them.
I am sorry. I should have asked if you have any evidence of industrialized countries governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population? I would guess that it would probably require more like 75% of the population in most African countries to non-cooperate to get rid of the government. But that is because they are third world countries where death is pretty common.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:No, because if they do not kill the non-cooperators, then it will cost them too much to imprison them, and they will go out of business. Wait, I am confused now. If governments didn't kill non-cooperators then they would have to suffer bankruptcy from imprisoning them...doesn't that then make them more inclined to kill non-cooperators thereby contradicting your previous statement that there is no evidence of large scale democide?
No, they would not be more inclined to kill them, because killing them would result in a much larger back lash. This is why the government is screwed if at least 5% of the population non-cooperates.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:No, I am asking if you think religion is not a big deal to people? To some people it is and to others it isn't.
Then, it is not "just religion", for, I would say, a lot of people.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:I said the government would not slaughter its population. Well I think Robert Higgs in one of his articles states that there were 170 million deaths by government from 1900 to 1980's [ I think it was the 80's ] and these deaths were not war causalities. One should wonder how all these people died. Do you have an opinion on their deaths?
Yes, that I don't think industrialized countries would slaughter its own population for non-cooperation. How many of those deaths from 1900 to the 1980's were by industrialized nations on non-cooperating populations?
Laughing Man: Spideynw: You think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes? They've killed for less. Apparently 'cults' are horrible menaces to the security of the US.
Yes, cults that use armed resistance. So I will ask again, you think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes, that were simply non-cooperating?
Laughing Man: Spideynw: Then what is the point of producing a better/cheaper product if people will not choose your product over the competition? This isn't some all or nothing question. Not all are willing to pay high prices and not all are going to get the cheapest. Economics tends towards equilibrium, it never achieves it.
So, what evidence do you have that people would pay taxes, if they were told they do not have to? In your world, would people happily pay for the food of someone behind them at McDonald's, if McDonald's had a policy of charging some customers extra so that they could give free meals to other customers? Is that how markets work?
nirgrahamUK: lol, its the fallacy of appeal to a persons humanity on matters of everyday common sense morality! we are not in the realms of clinical high-theoretic argument here.....
If he is going to bring in specific examples into the debate he should use more specific language himself. What does "worthy of being put down" mean?No, I don`t think a country should be "put down" for the crimes of its regime against it.
I assumed he was referring to the regime and not any innocent civilians in the region. this interpretation would be consistent given that he seemed to indicate sympathy towards aforemention civilians. My interpretation may have been wrong.
It should not be up to us to assume anything. He should just be more clear. If I write "USA should be put down", it can be interpreted in many ways. And that is no good because USA is not a generic. Others may be attached to her or fond of in some way.
JonBostwick: No. It is only moral to prevent the State from holding you(and people who feel the same way as you) in an involuntary relationship. You don't have the right to prevent others from associating with (and victimizing) each other.
No.
It is only moral to prevent the State from holding you(and people who feel the same way as you) in an involuntary relationship. You don't have the right to prevent others from associating with (and victimizing) each other.
To the contrary, you do have the right to prevent them from associating in a criminal organization that aggresses against outsiders as a matter of policy. It is not different from a man walking up to you with a gun and saying that he is going to shoot in in 5 seconds.
OK, I think I need to explain my position better.
I think it would only take at most 5% of an industrialized nations population to bring down the government, using non-violent, non-cooperation. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, there is not a government in any industrialized nation on earth that currently incarcerates even 1% of its population. The next reason is that most governments in industrialized nations have strict rules about killing its own population, usually only for using violence against the state or others. Aslo, as far as I am aware, most governments in industrialized nations believe in treating prisoners "fairly". Another thing is, the vast majority of prisoners are the poor. As such, incarcerating them does not cost the state much, because if they are not in prison, they are probably on welfare. Not only that, but they are not considered as productive, so incarcerating them does not affect the economy as much, in the government's eyes. And the middle class and wealthy can afford better defenses and are more difficult to incarcerate. Lastly, non-violent, non-cooperation appears to have worked for Gandhi and the civil rights movement for bringing about change.
So, if 5% of the population stopped cooperating with the government, and refused to pay taxes, I believe the government would have three options. Either kill them, imprison them, or do nothing. If the government kills them, then it would have a public relations nightmare on its hands. Politicians like to keep their jobs. So, they could kill a bunch of people and lose their jobs, and maybe their lives, or they could not kill them, and lose their jobs, and keep their lives. And really, I don't think most "Americans" like killing fellow "Americans". The government people would be killing "their own" people. In one example in this thread, the government killed just four innocent people, and that resulted in 4 million people getting pissed off.
The next option would be to incarcerate them. Depending on the statistic you look at, it costs the state ~$23k/year to incarcerate an individual. Not only would the budget for the justice system have to be increased by 7 to 10 fold, the economy would go into the toilet even further with all the productive people being taken out of the economy. A good chance of the government going bankrupt. And the government would still be faced with a public relations nightmare. So again, the politicians would be faced with incarcerating all these people, and losing their jobs, or not incarcerating them, and still losing their jobs. It is a lose/lose for them.
The last option is to do nothing. And if they do nothing, everyone would find out, and everyone else would stop paying taxes, and the politicians lose their jobs, because the government would go out of business.
The ogvernment having a public relations nightmare for about 5 minutes for killing a bunch of people, which is about how long people remember these events, is not enough to convince many people to be the sacrifical lambs.
There was a town in Canada that tried to declare independence a few years ago. The army was sent in and slaughtered the lot. Nobody cared, frankly, and I doubt that anyone remembers.
Caley McKibbin: The ogvernment having a public relations nightmare for about 5 minutes for killing a bunch of people, which is about how long people remember these events, is not enough to convince many people to be the sacrifical lambs. There was a town in Canada that tried to declare independence a few years ago. The army was sent in and slaughtered the lot. Nobody cared, frankly, and I doubt that anyone remembers.
Do you have a link to this story?
I tried and couldn't find it, which adds to my point of how noteworthy it was.
You know, there are very few people that even have the guts to run for office for the LP. Forget anything dangerous. I'm probably the youngest person to ever run for MP because everyone else is too chicken to even have their name on a ballot.
Most people expect to just sit around and wait for someone else to lift a finger.
Caley McKibbin: JonBostwick: No. It is only moral to prevent the State from holding you(and people who feel the same way as you) in an involuntary relationship. You don't have the right to prevent others from associating with (and victimizing) each other. To the contrary, you do have the right to prevent them from associating in a criminal organization that aggresses against outsiders as a matter of policy. It is not different from a man walking up to you with a gun and saying that he is going to shoot in in 5 seconds.
Nope.
You have the right to prevent the Government of Mexico from victimizing you, or anyone else who wishes to not associate with the government of Mexico. You, however, would be an aggressor to invade Mexico and destroy the state against the will of the people who do wish to be enslaved to it.
After all, "the state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Peace
Spideynw: OK, I think I need to explain my position better. I think it would only take at most 5% of an industrialized nations population to bring down the government, using non-violent, non-cooperation. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, there is not a government in any industrialized nation on earth that currently incarcerates even 1% of its population. The next reason is that most governments in industrialized nations have strict rules about killing its own population, usually only for using violence against the state or others. Aslo, as far as I am aware, most governments in industrialized nations believe in treating prisoners "fairly".
I think it would only take at most 5% of an industrialized nations population to bring down the government, using non-violent, non-cooperation. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, there is not a government in any industrialized nation on earth that currently incarcerates even 1% of its population. The next reason is that most governments in industrialized nations have strict rules about killing its own population, usually only for using violence against the state or others. Aslo, as far as I am aware, most governments in industrialized nations believe in treating prisoners "fairly".
Why do you need an example today? If you need only an example of an industrialized country, then I believe the Stalin example was sufficient. The civil war example was an example of a semi-industrialized country, but why does that change the fact that Lincoln got away with so much horror at a time when they respected the constitution way more than we do today?
As for the "treating prisoners fairly" argument, I don't see any reason why government should obey this when they don't already. Once the fear and show of force has been installed, people will back down. Look at what they have done with terrorism. They can call anyone a "terrorist" or "national threat" and arrest then without a public trial. I believe if 5% of the population stops paying taxes, they will find a lot more "terrorists" until those other "terrorists" back down.
I don't think a bullet cost $23,000 dollars, you assume the government will follow the law.
There were plenty of politicians in the Lincoln adminstration that were opposed to imprisoning of political prisoners. They were also imprisoned, along with many other's that fled the country, this kept the rest of them in their place.
The fear, the corruption, and the dictatorship of the Lincoln adminstration are long forgotten and the people of the time couldn't care less about it (publically) once their neighbor's were shot down or imprisoned.
Oh whoops, you said "incarcerate", I didn't see that for some reason.
But that still doesn't change anything I said though. They could easily kill enough people or incarcerate enough people in order to install the fear and bring down a rebellion, they don't need to kill/incarcerate 5% of the population to bring down 5% of the population.
Yes, they do have to punish everyone that is openly defying the government. Government authority is based on obedience. Why do you think cops get so pissed when people do not obey? Or judges? Or any government "official"? What do you think people would do, if you went into court, said "you have no legitimate authority" and walked out, and they did not do anything? You know how fast that story would spread, that they did not care that you just left? You know why it would spread so fast? Because you defied them, and they did nothing. If the government does not punish everyone that is openly defying it, then other people will disobey. And no, there is no evidence that a government in an industrialized nation is going to kill a lot of people for not paying taxes.
Libertarian_for_Life:If you need only an example of an industrialized country, then I believe the Stalin example was sufficient.
They were not non-cooperating. The people cooperated.
Libertarian_for_Life:The civil war example was an example of a semi-industrialized country, but why does that change the fact that Lincoln got away with so much horror at a time when they respected the constitution way more than we do today?
The South used violence. It was not non-cooperation.
Libertarian_for_Life:I believe if 5% of the population stops paying taxes, they will find a lot more "terrorists" until those other "terrorists" back down.
Well, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, your belief is baseless and just fear-mongoring.
Libertarian_for_Life:I don't think a bullet cost $23,000 dollars, you assume the government will follow the law.
That is what the evidence suggests. They didn't shoot Gandhi's followers or the civil rights people.