Dick Cheney or Al Capone: Who is the Greater Criminal?
Questioning Statistics, Shifting Paradigms

> Domestically, you will not be able to show that cops kill more people than
> non-cops do.

That's not the issue. (Especially if by "cops" you mean "police" rather than Dick Cheney.) The point is that the criminals in the American  government kill more people than the so-called "criminals" against which the government is believed to be in battle. Voters believe the government protects them from criminals, failing to realize that the government is the biggest criminal. Name a field of crime, and the government commits that crime 10,000 times more than private criminals. Citizens are more in danger of being robbed or killed by governments than by criminals. And not just domestically, but international killings and confiscations must be considered:

"The increase in mortality reported in public hospitals for children  under five years of age (an excess of some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is mainly due to diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. In those over five years of age, the increase (an excess of some 50,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is associated with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or kidney diseases." Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions.
- UNICEF, April 1998.
http://www.iacenter.org/sanimpct.htm

Private sector criminals cannot match the government's killing record.

> And, the idea that the blame for abortions lies at the feet of the
> government implies that you advocate the government enacting laws to
> prohibit abortion and, presumably, punish and lock up abortion providers --
> a position inconsistent with the rest of your site.

No such conclusion is logically required. The government is actively involved in suppressing pro-life activity. The government COULD stand back and let pro-life forces overwhelm pro-death forces. The government COULD use its bully pulpit to oppose abortion even if neither doctor nor mother were punished criminally in any way. The Supreme Court could strike down criminal punishments against abortion while still permitting states to criminalize it. The government funds planned parenthood on an international scale. There are lots of thing the State could STOP doing to lower the abortion rate.

> If the point you are trying to make is that governments kill more than
> citizens do, you will be unable to prove this using your statistics.

The point is MASSIVELY proven even if all the questions you raise go your way. Rummel's title is all too appropriate: "Death by Government." The numbers are not even close. Government kills more than criminals by several orders of magnitude.

> Even if you proved beyond a doubt that cops kill more people than non-cops,
> you still have done nothing to show that more people would not have been
> murdered had there been no cops.

That's frosting on the cake. I'll keep my eyes open for proof of that.
If America resolved to oppose all violence and abolished cops for that reason, the pravailing national ethos would be so strong that private-sector murders would be dramatically dimished.

> I think Rommell's figures are very powerful. If it was me, I wouldn't try
> to force some comparison to non-government deaths. When you do that, the
> reader (i.e. me) starts thinking of why your comparison may or may not be
> fallacious instead of focusing on the millions of people slaughtered by
> governemnts in this century.

OK, I'll make the case so strong that it's invincible.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/xiananarch/homepage.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subj: Rummel
Date: 8/1/00
From: KEVIN4VFT@aol.com
To: comunicus@zzzzmail.com

By the way, I do appreciate the constructive criticism on this issue.

But the more I think about it, the more I realize that I need to really play this issue up, perhaps as another one of those paradigm shift things. My goal is not merely to create shadows of doubt about the goodness of the state, or generate questions about our ability to assess the statistical claims of the State, but to create dogmatic certainty that it must be abolished.

Rummel is not an anarchist. But he is shocked by the level of violence initiated by the State. And his threshold of "violence" is much lower and less conspiratorial than mine (e.g., I doubt he believes the CIA deals cocaine. Such narco-terrorism is surely a species of violence which must be laid at the feet of the state http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no22/vo13no22_battle.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/focus/drugs/index.htm ). His book, Death by Government, plainly establishes the fact that governments are guilty of more crimes than private citizens.
The paradigm of most Americans is that the government PREVENTS crime, and without the government crime would increase. There are two responses to this. First, if no other changes in our thinking were to take place, and the State were to be abolished tomorrow, instantly, the level of crime (committed by the State) would obviously drop, and the world would be safer (even though a FEELING of safety would not be present, because "we" "consent" to most of the crimes committed in our day (committed as they are by the State) and do not consider them crimes or violence. But Second, we could not abolish the State
without widespread realization that it is evil, and without a widespread paradigm shift that all violence must be opposed. If this transformation of thinking were to occur, and then the state were to be abolished, there would be unfathomable changes.
There would be, in short, Vine & Fig Tree.

I don't want to create what you are experiencing: mere doubt about statistical evaluation of the State. A feeling that we can't really come to clear conclusions and make a dramatic break with the status quo, and are stuck with the State until Jesus comes again. I want to create a paradigm shift, that institutionalizing violence is a bad idea. That the very concept of "the State" is a bad idea in the minds of good people, a great idea in the minds of criminals. That the State is the greatest enemy to world transformation in the history of man. That the ideas of the Prince of Peace and the King of kings will bring about a stateless New Creation. I don't want people to say, "Well, I just don't know. I agree that the State needs to be reformed, but . . . . " I want people to have an "Ah-ha!" experience: "Oh, yes, *of course*! We MUST abolish the State! The whole idea must be purged from our thinking!"

I need to create a two-column page (one each for both America and the world). Column One lists crimes committed by criminals (in both jurisdictions [U.S. and world]). Column Two lists crimes in the same category committed by governments (in both jurisdictions [U.S. and world]). The monetary value of theft committed by government vastly exceeds the monetary value of theft committed by private criminals. The number of people injured or killed by the State (or sanctioned by the State) vastly exceeds the number committed by private "criminals." The disparity is overwhelming.

And, I naturally link to my separation of church and state page, because the secular State is the greatest obstacle to teaching  would-be criminals that God says not to kill and steal.

I invite your continued scrutiny.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/rummel.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subj:    Re: Rummel
Date:    8/1/00
From: KEVIN4VFT@aol.com
To: comunicus@zzzzmail.com

In a message dated 8/1/00 3:06:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, comunicus@hotmail.com writes:

>
> The difficulty in comparing the State’s impact on citizens with the
> Criminals’ impact on citizens lies in the fact that the State purports to
> lessen the Criminals’ impact.
>
> Thus, if you pointed out that the State killed 100 citizens in 1999, while
> the Criminals killed only 50 citizens in 1999, the Statist would correctly
> respond by making two points:
>
> First, a good portion of the 100 citizens killed by the State were the
> Criminals who had killed 50 -- they weren’t innocent in other words.

"A good portion" is factually incorrect. Most of those killed by the State
are innocent, non-combatants. This point is made by Rummel.
It overwhelmingly applies to war (e.g., US murder of peasants in Iraq).
It also applies to other areas, I'm sure, though the connections
would require some footwork.

The widespread mentality expressed in this criticism is that "criminals"
might kill ME, while our government mostly kills people of color
in other countries, and is not as likely to kill ME. Like J.Edgar Hoover
is reported to have said when objections were voiced to raising
money for the CIA by smuggling drugs in S.E.Asia, on the grounds
that American soldiers or Americans in the U.S. might end up
using some of these drugs: "Real Americans don't use drugs."

> Second, a good portion of the 100 citizens killed would have gone on to kill
> others had their lives not been ended by the State.

Actually, the trend is to jail non-violent dope-smoking losers and let the
murderers and rapists go free (after a few months, of course).

The number of deaths in the government's "war on drugs" is larger
than the number of bad guys executed in gas chambers etc.
Death is not a Biblically-mandated punishment for smuggling drugs,
therefore the crime committed bythe State is murder. They may
not have been "pure," but legally/Biblically speaking, they were
innocent.

> ----------------------------
>
> But Second, we could not abolish the State without widespread realization
> that it is evil, and without a widespread paradigm shift that all violence
> must be opposed. If this transformation of thinking were to occur, and then
> the state were to be abolished, there would be unfathomable changes.
>
> -----------------------
>
> I totally agree. But, you will never convince somebody that the world will
> be safer without a State. (I don’t even necessarily agree with that
> myself.) You CAN convince people, however, that the State should be
> abolished REGARDLESS of whether or not this causes the world to be a safer
> place.

I believe the Bible plainly teaches that the world will be a better place
without the State. There is no room for disagreement or tinkering
with statistics on this one. The Bible is plain: "Israel shall dwell safely."

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/pat-nat.htm
>
>
> ---------------------
>
>
> I need to create a two-column page (one each for both America and the
> world). Column One lists crimes committed by criminals (in both
> jurisdictions [U.S. and world]). Column Two lists crimes in the same
> category committed by governments (in both jurisdictions [U.S. and world]).
> The monetary value of theft committed by government vastly exceeds the
> monetary value of theft committed by private criminals. The number of people
> injured or killed by the State (or sanctioned by the State) vastly exceeds
> the number committed by private "criminals." The disparity is overwhelming.
> And, I naturally link to my separation of church and state page, because the
> secular State is the greatest obstacle to teaching would-be criminals that
> God says not to kill and steal. I invite your continued scrutiny.
>
>
> -----------------------------
>
> This wouldn’t convince me. I would glance at it and instantly think to
> myself -- “But, the criminals killed innocent people and the State killed
> criminals ... apples and oranges.”

See above. "Capital punishment" is overwhelmingly among the least
significant sources of statist murder. Mostly it is the innocent who
are victims. I can see this point needs to be accentuated.

> I would also think, “My tax dollars go
> to pay for an apparauts I can use to prevent thefts and to recoup moneys
> from thieves.”

How many civil suits follow criminal convictions? Most civil suits
are the envious and covetous going for vengeance or deep pockets.
The Criminal code virtually never provides for restitution, which could
certainly be enforced by insurance companies and other voluntary
associations in the absense of the State.

> People have no problem seeing that the government is evil. They think,
> however, that it is a necessary evil. They will look at Rummel’s numbers
> and say, “The U.S. killed 10,000 people. Thank goodness. No telling what
> those 10,000 people would have done had they not been killed by the good
> ole’ USA. I never knew there were that many evil people out there. We need
> more cops!”

People who kill lots of people generally kill the innocent.
That's the way it is.
The State is no exception to this rule.

Thanks for raising points which need to be addressed.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/index.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[e-mail to V&FT]
[V&FT Home Page]