The only candidate I can think of is Mao. Neither Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot killed tens of millions. Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, but mostly through starvation due to bad government policy, which wouldn't normally classify as murder.
Am I missing someone? I take "tens of millions" as meaning at least twenty million.
The obvious problem is that those who would be in charge of making such changes are the same ones that benefit from the status quo. How do we get to the point where everyone (or enough relevant people) feel that they have more to lose from allowing unconstrained government than they have to gain from seeking exceptions for themselves?
"including murdering tens of millions of them."
The only candidate I can think of is Mao. Neither Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot killed tens of millions. Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, but mostly through starvation due to bad government policy, which wouldn't normally classify as murder.
Am I missing someone? I take "tens of millions" as meaning at least twenty million.
The obvious problem is that those who would be in charge of making such changes are the same ones that benefit from the status quo. How do we get to the point where everyone (or enough relevant people) feel that they have more to lose from allowing unconstrained government than they have to gain from seeking exceptions for themselves?
Worth another month of paid subscription. Thank you.