Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....

[Tom Allard <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>]

> > We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by government.
>
> Oh, this is just charming.  People are still dying, and now you're going
> to sit on the sidelines making tally marks for your pissing contest.

I didn't start this discussion.  But the question remains... are we better
with or without governments.  If you argue that we need gov't for safety,
it seems valid to ask under which system will have less killing.  It seems
to me that situations like Rawanda are just more examples of how gov'ts can
kill more people and more efficiently than any single mass murderer.

And speaking of the sidelines, what, exactly, are YOU doing about it?

> You can't count up human lives and say ``this entity is more evil than
> this entity.''  It doesn't work that way.  People are people, regardless,
> and usually don't deserve that kind of premature termination.

Why on Earth can't you can't up the lives?  It's pretty easy.  Hitler was
worse than Manson because he killed millions while Manson was only able to
kill, what, less than a dozen?  None of their victims deserved to die.  But
if Hitler hadn't been able to take control of the German gov't, fewer people
would have been killed (unless some other crazy got the gov't).

> As for the running dictionary flame, by all means, piss on.  Perhaps
                                                     ^^^^^^^
> later, when you mature a little, discussion can get back to more
                  ^^^^^^
> meaningful topics.

A classic case of pot & kettle syndrome.

It is, however, difficult to argue that "anarchy" is better than gov't when
someone's definition of "anarchy" is not "no government".

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D