--- In [email protected], "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.
------------------------
If the point is not to eliminate diseases, then what is all of
healthcare and medicine? But we can dispense with this detail,
because the core of your analogy is ineffective. Read on. The
"vaccination" of government violence does NOT prevent the spread
of further government violence.
------------------------
>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.
------------------------
"Not SURE...". (Sorry for the typo.)
------------------------
>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.
------------------------
That appears to conflict with your first comment about
vaccinations. The conversation had questioned whether a criminal
protection racket (government) was a valid defense against
enemies "whether internal or external". Your reply had answered,
"yes, just as vaccination is a valid way to protect against more
virulent contagious diseases." Your vaccination analogy was
obviously not restricted to protection against dictatorships.
BTW, this also contradicts your current disagreement with Sasan's
"protection racket" analogy. Your original shows you agreed with
it.
------------------------
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.
----------------------
Even if that may contain less falsity, it's a misrepresentation
of your original analogy - rendered ineffective above.
----------------------
>Silly me; I thought government violence consisted of far more
than
>that.
What government violence is worse than war and democide?
----------------------
I misspoke. I meant to say "far LESS than that". (Addressed
above.)
----------------------
>(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.
---------------------
Yes. I admitted it was a fallacy, in response to yours. But you
deleted the admission ("sorry, but your fallacy begged that one")
so you could attack it.
---------------------
