I know, I just felt like rambling a bit.

I was just going by the numbers. A 33% chance of dying by violence is much worse than that experiences by any society based on nation states. Arguing against the pain of individuals would both accomplish little and make me feel like a jerk.

Despite the terrible injustices inflicted by the Spanish on the natives of central America (most under some kind of government that would have evolved into a nation state), I've always been taught that disease was a far greater culprit in the horrendous death rates than even the tendency for the Spanish to work slaves to death. A lot of the stories about the Spanish were propaganda spread by France and England, that we're only now learning is false.

The only thing that scares me about a worldwide nation-state is the kind of worry Ramses expressed.

Anyway, I'm off to church now, so no more debating for me. Feel free to refute my pathetic arguments. Oh, and Doug is playing his Teutonic save tonight, so we might have another of those "three turns in a few hours"
moments.

Quote Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Which is why I am not advocating going back to pre-state societies.

(I thought I said that earlier...)



Though I might take issue with your implication that post-Columbus America was not deadly. Millions of indigenous people died from disease, overwork, and war as a direct result of European intervention.

Also my Polish step-grandfather has a thing or two to say about how deadly it was in in the first half of the 20th century since he spent all of World War 2 in Auschwitz as slave labor.

So, my point is, pre-state societies and nation-states were/are both deadly. I would prefer to have a government based on neither. I rather move forward and create something else that takes care of the greatest amount of people possible. And I know we're capable of it which makes me stubborn because I know we can do better than what we've done and what we have now.