Whether the disease is actually eliminated or only the symptoms eliminated, the principle is the same. The point is elimination.
I'm not about the nature of your "contagious" comment. Is government violence more of a contagion than a cancer? What makes it more like diseases treatable by vaccination? Now it seems you have radically narrowed your definition of government violence to totalitarianism and wars with other democracies. Silly me; I thought government violence consisted of far more than that. (I guess virtually all of our complaints here on Libertarian are trivial, since we do not yet live under totalitarianism. [Sorry, but your fallacy begged that one.]) --------------------- > >"Most diseases": cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. Then you're wrong. Diabetes, for instance, is not usually treated by elimination. Nor is it contagious. The other diseases you cited aren't contagious, either, thus making them disanalogous to the sort of diseases treatable by vaccination. >Now combine that with the fact that the "vaccination" of gov >violence does NOT protect the body of the people from contracting >the disease... Democracy does a good job of protecting against totalitarianism. It also does a good job of protecting against wars, since democracies don't make war upon each other. >But since you seem to waver from arguing against anarchy to >arguing FOR anarchy... I'm arguing for anarchy, by way of arguing for the most anarchist types of governments (democracies) over the least anarchist types (dictatorships). Tim Starr Fight for Liberty! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/
