--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Whether the disease is actually eliminated or only the symptoms >eliminated, the principle is the same.
Not at all. Your claim remains unproven, at best. "Most" diseases are not treated by elimination, either of causes or symptoms. In any case, this is just one big red herring. >I'm not about the nature of your "contagious" comment. Not what? The reason I brought it up is that non-contagious diseases aren't treated by vaccination. Governments spread; cancer doesn't. >Now it seems you have radically narrowed your definition of >government violence to totalitarianism and wars with other >democracies. Not at all. First, my comparison was between democracies and dictatorships. Second, what I said was that the former are much less likely to engage in war and democide than the latter. I never said that democracies didn't do those things, nor did I say they aren't violent in any other ways; they do, and they are. Still, war and democide account for the most violence in human history, and dictatorships are far more prone to them than democracies. Thus, for you to claim that "immunizing" a society with democracy to prevent it from going totalitarian is not analogous to infecting someone with a weaker strain of a disease to prevent them from catching the full-blown version of it is false. Democracy is a "weaker" form of statism than dictatorship, insofar as it exhibits less of the negative symptoms of statism. >Silly me; I thought government violence consisted of far more than >that. What government violence is worse than war and democide? >(I guess virtually all of our complaints here on Libertarian are >trivial, since we do not yet live under totalitarianism. Nice strawman. Have fun beating it up, & let me know when you're ready to talk to me. Tim Starr Fight for Liberty! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/
