I mean, even Hitler, who purposely tried to kill as many people as possible with guns and gas, still couldn't outdo just a good ol' fashioned mass starvation. Alas, why I like charts like this;
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Good Intentions Kill People
I always like debating communists. It's become a rarer event as when you leave college, people are inevitably forced to get real jobs and start supporting themselves, so the kid living on daddy's dime whilst studying philosophy at the university now has to support himself with the $7.25/hr he makes at the coffee shop. But one of the best arguments against communism that immediately puts people on the defensive is just how many people communism killed.
I mean, even Hitler, who purposely tried to kill as many people as possible with guns and gas, still couldn't outdo just a good ol' fashioned mass starvation. Alas, why I like charts like this;
I mean, even Hitler, who purposely tried to kill as many people as possible with guns and gas, still couldn't outdo just a good ol' fashioned mass starvation. Alas, why I like charts like this;
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's true. But the smarter ones would argue that Hitler and the Nazis killed at a much faster pace. So, in that sense, Communism isn't as deadly. But that's like comparing Ricin to Cyanide.
There /does/ seem to be a strange correlation between communism and mass murder. ;-) Dead on.
I notice that we both are blogging about the same concept, that being capitalism, and would like to offer a link trade, like all good capitalist bloggers do.
I'll add a link to your site in my blogroll for a link to my site or my capitalism page (www.ShaunConnell.com -- Reason and Capitalism).
Let me know when you decide!
Anon,
Good point. But it seems to show that the world is more accepting of a mass murdering country, before, if at all, the intervene.
Or to quote Eddie Izzard;
"Hitler killed people next door. Tisk tisk tisk. Foolish man.
Pol Pot killed people in his own country. After several years of that we won't stand for it will we?"
Meant to say;
"Good point. But it seems to show that the world is more accepting of a mass murdering country if it's of a lefter leaning nature, before, if at all, they intervene.
THAT'S IT!! I'm done arguing with socialists.
No wonder the world accepts left-leaning murderous dictatorships.
You argue with these people, you provide cold, hard facts that shoot down all of their arguments with military precision, showing how murderous all these regimes were, how oppressive, how they don't work, how they can't work, and how at their murder numbers they made Adolf Hitler look like Jesus, and they STILL don't believe you.
They either get mad and tell you off with some choice words, or they pick one little argument they disagree with in particular and say because of it, they won't be responding to the rest of your argument >:(
No socialist tyrant will ever run short of hot-eyed young zealouts, that's for sure.
As far as pace goes, if we were to compare the NSDAP's program during the Holocaust to the Holodomor in the Ukraine (not including the other regions of the USSR), it seems that, within the space of a single year there were between 2.5 million and 3.5 million Ukrainians intentionally starved by Stalin's government.
Taking that rate of killing and comparing it to the Shoah portion of the Holocaust (assuming three years of the "Final Solution"), the argument may be advanced that Stalin and his cronies were more efficient at killing had they continued.
WAIT WAIT WAIT!
I can see where this is going!
Let's play "Predict the Liberal Argument"
I predict a liberal will now come in and say,
"Yeah, well, the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed 600,000 in 2 minutes. So if you extrapolate that to 3 years, then the US killed 89 trillion people and is the world's worst murderer and it's all Bush's fault!"
Capitalism just externalises it's costs through war. i.e. the USA, the alleged beacon of capitalism has been at constant war, next you keep forgetting about all the people employers killed during the period of industrialization.
Next suicide, mental illness, are just as toxic effects on markets on human beings, being in an unnatural economic system.
The market is BS, the invention of money is flawed because of geometric properties that allow it to be abused.
People are only rich because there is no checkes and balances on how much money one can acquire, that is one of the major reasons why their is poverty in industrialized nations.
There isn't any scarcity in canada, yet there are over a million people in poverty, this poverty is artificially maintained by the monetary system.
Post a Comment