Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambiguous
Apparently the lives of the tens of millions who have perished under the rule of government is worth the degree of "safety" that governments have given the world, you know, those sane, workable economic systems that everybody is in love with.
|
It`s foolish not to make differences between totalitarian and autocratic states on the one hand, and constitutional democracies on the other hand.
I think, that you make the same mistake as Rousseau did. He believed also in the noble savage, who is corrupted by civilisation and state. But history tells another story. The number of killed people decreased with the rise of states and institutions. In native tribes, much more people died in warfare, than today, when you compare the number od deads to the number of people.
State gave the world much more peace. Arbitrary power is much more propable in areas, where common rules and law doesn`t exist.
The neccessity of common rules rises with increase of human connections. Modern capitalism with its global market couldn`t exist with such common rules.
Just look at the people in the slums of the third world: There you can watch your idea of complete exclusion of state law. They have no chance to grow up a successful buisness, because they have no legal certainty.
Private security is without a frame of state law only the rule of the strong.
A common rule/law helps especially the poor and weak to protect their property and wealth.