Government has the Monopoly to kill you

Image Credits: Reuters: Kacper Pempel


To be forcibly starved to death—by the decree of government nonetheless—is a horrific act of evil. Democide,[1] which R.J. Rummel defined as death by government (excluding instances such as war and natural disasters), claimed 262+ million victims in the 20th Century alone.[2]

But if someone dies of starvation because of a court order, is this considered democide? Arguably yes, but whether it gets added to the statistics is an enigma; the untold horror stories of Communism and Fascism, when slowly revealed, remind us that millions of individuals are simply unaccounted for.[3] And it’s a well-known theme in the most brutal regimes that doctors eventually become barred from reporting deaths that clearly result from the government, and by the same logic, the 3+ million that died during the Holodomor in 1932 -1933 as a result of government-mandated food shortages died naturally as well. A modern-day example is that the men, women, and children of Venezuela are often times reported as having died naturally. One study noted that:

Doctors are censored in hospitals, too, often warned not to include malnutrition in children ’s medical records.

“In some public hospitals, the clinical diagnosis of malnutrition has been prohibited,” Dr. Huníades Urbina said.

But doctors interviewed by The Times at nine of the 21 public hospitals said that they had kept at least some count. They encountered nearly 2,800 cases of child malnutrition in the last year alone, with starving children regularly brought to emergency rooms. Nearly 400 of the children died, the doctors said.[4]


The death of Terri Schiavo, one which I personally watched from my television growing up in the 2000’s, shed light on these evils in the case heard around the world. On March 18, 2005, Judge George Greer ordered that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube be removed for the third time in four years and she died 13 days later from starvation; her ex-husband Michael wanted her to pass on, and Terri’s parents wanted her to remain on her feeding tube. Prior to that, on October 21, 2003, the House passed Terri’s Bill (or Terri’s Law) which ordered her feeding tube to be reinserted. Whether her feeding tube should have been removed or not is a moot point, considering both the ex-husband and the parents were trapped in a legal battle in which the insertion/removal of the feeding tube was court ordered. In an unfair assessment, some will claim this was not a failure of government, yet the decision to keep this woman alive was in the hands of the State inarguably.

The only situation worse than the one previously described is one involving the State and a child.

Alfie Evans, who went on life support after being diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disorder, recently was sentenced to death as a prime example of State violence. After being removed from his ventilator, he was said to be breathing for nearly 24 hours on his own. The parents— fighting to get their child food and water—were denied. Justice Anthony Rayden’s ruling, which you can read, was sickening:

Properly analysed, Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. By this I mean care which will keep him as comfortable as possible at the last stage of his life. He requires peace, quiet and privacy in order that he may conclude his life, as he has lived it, with dignity.[5]


In other words, the State knew what “requiring peace, quiet, and privacy” meant, and they were the ones that were going to make the decision. The conclusion was even more telling:

It was entirely right that every reasonable option should be explored for Alfie. I am now confident that this has occurred. The continued provision of ventilation, in circumstances which I am persuaded is futile, now compromises Alfie’s future dignity and fails to respect his autonomy. I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s best interest. This decision I appreciate will be devastating news to Alfie’s parents and family. I hope they will take the time to read this judgment and to reflect upon my analysis.[6]

In other words, the child was only considered autonomous in the hands of politicians, where he died from the decision of the British government. The parents, helpless by the State edict, witnessed their almost 2-year-old child suffocate and starve to death, while the armed guards outside the hospital were indicative that any means necessary were to be used to defend the will of the State. Their final appeal, which would have allowed the child to be transferred to another hospital in Italy, where they were willing to attempt other treatments along with being flown out for free, was also denied; and Judge Rayden had the temerity to mention the humaneness of the situation.[7]

One last point worth noting is that there is a common theme present: that brain-dead patients have recovered in the past. In one scenario in April 2012, with the insistence of his father that there was still brain wave activity, the “doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.”[8] In a similar case in July 2013, a woman considered brain dead “woke up just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant.”[9] These cases to anyone’s dismay are very prevalent.[10]

The State, granting itself a monopoly on force and violence, indeed has the power to control whether you eat or breathe, and the death of children in such vile and inconsiderate manner should alarm anyone.




[1] See R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2006), pp. 36-37.; Also see p. 31:

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

[2] See

[3] Rummel in fact did his research in a scholarly way; when he came across new evidence, he would add it to the numbers. He did it till the end of his life.

[4] See

[5] See, p. 22.

[6] Ibid. p. 22.

[7] See

[8] See

[9] See

[10] See