Rock the non-vote

[Titan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

Dreams of Utopia are just that, dreams, so I hate hypothetical arguments since they are rearely useful.

To answer your question, when there are no laws, people still have to deal with each other. And where did this value judgement come from? Why do I care if my neighbor fills up his yard with rusted cars? If sewage runs in the street and people don't like it, they need to deal with each other. Just like we always did. Humans are the talking animals, but we are still animals. Like in the wild west, for example. Sometimes stupid people ruin things for others and its up to others to stop them. It's not consensus that makes right, might makes right. Laws don't really protect you, so you have to protect yourself.

If an asteroid was colliding with earth, we could all vote to have the asteroid go away. I bet that would work. But I bet nuking it would work better. In fact, that's a good hypothetical situation to demonstrate that voting may not work. Democracy fails when you need specialized thought, not the consensus by the politically motivated masses. So if marketing and mudslinging beat out the scientist, we would all be dead.

I agree a lot with what Dissipate is saying. It makes sense, but is a fine distinction. People do not operate as a group. People operate as individuals, in a group. Group decisions translates into individual decisions.

We all live and die in the world our neighbors make for us.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

well, the concensus to anarchy for one. DOH!, theres that Catch 22 again.

So if you are truly an anarchist, you believe theres nothing wrong with what other people do or think, and your not going to waste your time trying to convince someone else to think like you, but wait, thats exactly what you are doing.

Hehe, good point that never crossed my mind.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dissipate

No, what I am saying is that from the standpoint of the individual, your vote does not matter. As humans we engage in something called human action, which entails attempting to cause something to occur in the future. This is to say that human action is based on causality. Only individuals can act, there is no such thing as 'collective action.' What is thougt of as collective action is merely just the sum of individual actions.

So, from an individual's standpoint the question is: do I vote or not vote? And if I vote what are the reasons for doing so? Well, if your reason to vote is to change some tangible outcome in the future, then that is ridiculous because your vote will most certainly not change the outcome of the election. Therefore, if one is to vote, one must vote for some other reason. A lot of reasons that I have heard are along the lines of 'civic duty,' and 'promoting democracy.' Rarely do I hear someone say: 'You should vote, because there is a very good chance that your vote could decide the election.' Those who cite the case in Florida simply haven't calculated their probabilities or believe that these very low probabilities are actually relatively good ones.

If your reason for voting is not based on producing a tangible result in the future, then it is much more likely that your reason for voting is based on a quasi-religious belief in democratic ideals. It is just like during a religious ceremony, people engaged in the ceremony might not expect anything tangible result to result from the ceremony, but to them it has other non-tangible significance.

From an objective results oriented standpoint, voting is irrational.

and of course, if everyone bought into your theory, then one vote certainly would count. so, obviously, where only one person votes and everyone else stays home because, well, voting doesn't count so isn't rational, one vote does count and so staying home is irrational.

boy it sure is fun to argue extremes.

Your argument has already been addressed in the article I linked to. Empircally speaking, we know that it is not the case that people do not vote. Millions of people still vote, hence, what I said still holds.

Furthermore, if no one voted or if very few people voted, democracy would be done for.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

I make sure I move into a neighborhood with a home owner's association that doesn't allow that kind of stuff.

 

[Train]

ya a homeowners association that VOTED to not allow junk in yards or unrepaired septic tanks!

noooooo aaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeee can't escape the damn voting!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

I make sure I move into a neighborhood with a home owner's association that doesn't allow that kind of stuff.

Which becomes a defacto govt. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do? It's my business. Get lost. If I wanted your control I would have voted for you.

You see, there is always someone who wants power. Call it what you will it is human nature. If govt goes away, something just like it will arise because not everyone thinks like you.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

well, the concensus to anarchy for one. DOH!, theres that Catch 22 again.

That doesn't require a 'consensus.' I don't need to take an opinion poll to believe in anarchy, and nor does anyone else.

So if you are truly an anarchist, you believe theres nothing wrong with what other people do or think

When did I say that? I certainly do care when someone is extorting money from me, sending me threatening letters to show up for jury duty, and not allowing me to own firearms that I wish to own.

, and your not going to waste your time trying to convince someone else to think like you, but wait, thats exactly what you are doing.

I don't consider arguing a waste of time. If I did, I wouldn't do it. Of course, at some point it could get old, but currently I argue just to see what common objections I will run into. And maybe based on those I'll make my own anarchist FAQ.

Do I think that everyone will some day adopt anarchy and it will be achieved? No, not by a long shot.

But just as people constantly debate government policies even when it is not likely that they will be passed, I like to debate my views.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
ya a homeowners association that VOTED to not allow junk in yards or unrepaired septic tanks!

noooooo aaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeee can't escape the damn voting!

Who said it would have to operate on voting? Most likely there would be a land owner who would set the rules before people moved in.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

I make sure I move into a neighborhood with a home owner's association that doesn't allow that kind of stuff.

Which becomes a defacto govt. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do? It's my business. Get lost. If I wanted your control I would have voted for you.

It wouldn't be a defacto government anymore than my landlord is a defacto government. More on communities in anarchy

You see, there is always someone who wants power. Call it what you will it is human nature. If govt goes away, something just like it will arise because not everyone thinks like you.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

well, the concensus to anarchy for one. DOH!, theres that Catch 22 again.

That doesn't require a 'consensus.' I don't need to take an opinion poll to believe in anarchy, and nor does anyone else.

So if you are truly an anarchist, you believe theres nothing wrong with what other people do or think

When did I say that? I certainly do care when someone is extorting money from me, sending me threatening letters to show up for jury duty, and not allowing me to own firearms that I wish to own.

, and your not going to waste your time trying to convince someone else to think like you, but wait, thats exactly what you are doing.

I don't consider arguing a waste of time. If I did, I wouldn't do it. Of course, at some point it could get old, but currently I argue just to see what common objections I will run into. And maybe based on those I'll make my own anarchist FAQ.

Do I think that everyone will some day adopt anarchy and it will be achieved? No, not by a long shot.

But just as people constantly debate government policies even when it is not likely that they will be passed, I like to debate my views.

you totally missed the point. For anarchism to exist, everyone has to AGREE on it, or it wont happen, and what is it when everone agrees? a CONSENSUS

For example, you are an anarchist, yet you pay taxes to my government. How are you going to stop that? You would need quite a bit of people on your side, but I thought anarchism doesnt require consensus? Damn, another dead end. Sorry you have to pay all those taxes you hate so much, probably until you die (and even after you die if you have money in the bank)

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

well, the concensus to anarchy for one. DOH!, theres that Catch 22 again.

That doesn't require a 'consensus.' I don't need to take an opinion poll to believe in anarchy, and nor does anyone else.

So if you are truly an anarchist, you believe theres nothing wrong with what other people do or think

When did I say that? I certainly do care when someone is extorting money from me, sending me threatening letters to show up for jury duty, and not allowing me to own firearms that I wish to own.

, and your not going to waste your time trying to convince someone else to think like you, but wait, thats exactly what you are doing.

I don't consider arguing a waste of time. If I did, I wouldn't do it. Of course, at some point it could get old, but currently I argue just to see what common objections I will run into. And maybe based on those I'll make my own anarchist FAQ.

Do I think that everyone will some day adopt anarchy and it will be achieved? No, not by a long shot.

But just as people constantly debate government policies even when it is not likely that they will be passed, I like to debate my views.

you totally missed the point. For anarchism to exist, everyone has to AGREE on it, or it wont happen, and what is it when everone agrees? a CONSENSUS

You are arguing semantics because it depends on what you mean by an 'opinion reached by a group as a whole.' Does that mean that the group itself as a tangible entity came to a consensus, or does it mean that the individuals within that group decided on something? I don't think that it makes sense to call a consensus what individuals on their own decided. For instance, if I watch TV and you watch TV, but we both live on different sides of the country, did we come to a 'consensus' to watch TV? Or did we even really 'agree' to watch TV? Not really.

A consensus has implications more along the lines of people within a group haggling with each other over some action the 'group' is going to take.

However, anarchy could come about by individuals rejecting the state on their own, no haggling required.

But in any event, you are wrong. There are situations in which the government simply cannot exist due to prevailing social conditions. Even if everyone wanted a government, for instance, but it was not possible to levy any taxes, then you wouldn't have a government.

Furthermore, not everyone would have to agree for anarchy to exist. Certainly not everyone agrees that the state should exist, and yet it does.



For example, you are an anarchist, yet you pay taxes to my government. How are you going to stop that? You would need quite a bit of people on your side, but I thought anarchism doesnt require consensus?

It doesn't, read above.

Damn, another dead end. Sorry you have to pay all those taxes you hate so much, probably until you die (and even after you die if you have money in the bank)

 

[Train]

so the people are just going to just wake up one day and decide they dont want government? And the govt will vanish into thin air?

Wether or not they had to come to an agreement, the majority has to be on the same page. The same logic applies.

We've seen many times when city or state governments only have 20% voter turnout, so does that mean 80% of the population is giving up on government? does the govt just go away? Nope, it essentially rule by that 20%.

 

[Captante]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Just thought I'd add an on-topic final point (by me at least) to this thread... the West Haven Ct City election was today & the 14 year Incumbent (Ind.) was defeated by 73 votes by the Democratic challenger for Mayor, city population is about 55,000 & about 30,000 people voted... my bet is that considerably more then 73 people on both sides "had better things to do" then vote today & I'd also bet every independant voter who didn't bother to head to the polls is kicking themselves about now.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
so the people are just going to just wake up one day and decide they dont want government? And the govt will vanish into thin air?

No. But just as people didn't come to a 'consensus' on whether or not to walk their dog, mow their lawns or go to work, they could decide to no longer have a state without anything like a 'consensus.'

Wether or not they had to come to an agreement, the majority has to be on the same page. The same logic applies.

Being on the 'same page' and having a 'consensus' are two different things.

We've seen many times when city or state governments only have 20% voter turnout, so does that mean 80% of the population is giving up on government?

No, the vast majority of those non-voters still believe in the state and democracy. Not voting and rejecting the state and the legitimacy thereof are two different things.

does the govt just go away? Nope, it essentially rule by that 20%.

It would if those 80% decided that they didn't want to be ruled anymore.

 

[Train]

but that 80% did nothing, even if they were all anarchists like you, the govt still exists. They would have to ACTIVELY dismantle the govt, its not going to just disapear.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
but that 80% did nothing, even if they were all anarchists like you, the govt still exists. They would have to ACTIVELY dismantle the govt, its not going to just disapear.

If that 80% simply pretended the state didn't exist and went about their daily lives paying no heed to the state or its edicts, that other 20% would have a hell of a time enforcing anything like a government. This would be similar to 'disappear.'

Imagine if every business stopped collecting sales tax, no one filed tax returns, gas stations stopped paying excise taxes etc. The state would essentially cease to exist, no dismantling required.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Captante
Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Just thought I'd add an on-topic final point (by me at least) to this thread... the West Haven Ct City election was today & the 14 year Incumbent (Ind.) was defeated by 73 votes by the Democratic challenger for Mayor, city population is about 55,000 & about 30,000 people voted... my bet is that considerably more then 73 people on both sides "had better things to do" then vote today & I'd also bet every independant voter who didn't bother to head to the polls is kicking themselves about now.

Why? No single one of them would have tipped the scales, even with such a small margin. But I will concede that if you are going to vote, voting in local elections with a smaller number of ballots cast is more rational than voting in say the presidential election. The probability for determining the outcome of a local election is still probably low enough for it to not be worth someone's time.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

I make sure I move into a neighborhood with a home owner's association that doesn't allow that kind of stuff.

Already read your other responses on the issue.

So how does this HomeOwners Association work without a Consensus? Who decides what to allow? Do you have any say at all on those decisions?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Even in a Anarchy consensus needs to be acheived. Without Consensus chaos rules.

A consensus on what and by whom?

What, whatever. Who, the People.

I make decisions about 'what, whatever' every day. And the only person involved in this type of 'consensus' is myself. I fail to see what you are trying to show.

So let's imagine. Imagine that a Anarchist Utopia is acheived. You are a responsible person. You are relatively quiet as to not bother the neighbours, you have properly plumbed your home with water and sewage, and you take care of your yard so it looks nice.

Most people in the neighbourhood are similar, but there are some that don't. Bob practices his shooting at 4 am in his backyard. Jim has rusted out cars and other junk strewn all over his back and front yard. Steve didn't bother with a septic tank, he pipes all his sewage onto his front yard where it slowly oozes into the street.

So what do you do?

I make sure I move into a neighborhood with a home owner's association that doesn't allow that kind of stuff.

Already read your other responses on the issue.

So how does this HomeOwners Association work without a Consensus? Who decides what to allow? Do you have any say at all on those decisions?

Would probably depend on the community. Maybe some could have a board where you get to vote, while others would just have a land owner who made all the decisions.

Through the free market process, however, the ones with the best rules and the best offers would survive. Ones that didn't and had crappy rules would go out of business.

 

[Train]

So Diss, have you stopped paying sales tax?

Is income tax not being taken out of your check?

Ya I thought so. So much for "wishing" govt away.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
So Diss, have you stopped paying sales tax?

Yep, and so has everyone else, except business owners. See section 3 of This chapter of Power & Market

Is income tax not being taken out of your check?

I'm a full time college student, so no it is not.

Ya I thought so. So much for "wishing" govt away.

I never said an individual could just 'wish' government away. What I said was that if there was a widescale ignoring of government, it would indeed go away. Even the most despotic regimes are based on popular support. If the majority of the population treated government as they would a regular stranger or as a violator of their property, the government would cease to exist. The IRS has a hard time collecting income tax now, for instance. Imagine if even 75% of the population no longer believed the IRS had legitimate authority to tax. Or imagine even further if people saw the Federal Reserve as the scam that it is and went back to a monetary system based on precious metals. Say goodbye to the modern state.

Just like anyone, I can be intimidated by force. But the difference between you and I is that I know that I'm being victimized by an unjust and cruel government. You on the other hand are working for The Man, and really have no idea what you are supporting. You continue to go along with it believing that at the least it is a legitimate system. In many cases, however, I'm sure you fully support the state's nefarious activities (especially when it comes to the military).

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
So Diss, have you stopped paying sales tax?

Yep, and so has everyone else, except business owners. See section 3 of This chapter of Power & Market

Is income tax not being taken out of your check?

I'm a full time college student, so no.

Ya I thought so. So much for "wishing" govt away.

I never said an individual could just 'wish' government away. What I said was that if there was a widescale ignoring of government, it would indeed go away. Even the most despotic regimes are based on popular support. If the majority of the population treated government as they would a regular stranger or as a violator of their property, the government would cease to exist. The IRS has a hard time collecting income tax now, for instance. Imagine if even 75% of the population no longer believed the IRS had legitimate authority to tax. Or imagine even further if people saw the Federal Reserve as the scam that it is and went back to a monetary system based on precious metals. Say goodbye to the modern state.

Just like anyone, I can be intimidated by force. But the difference between you and I is that I know that I'm being victimized by an unjust and cruel government. You on the other hand are working for The Man, and really have no idea what you are supporting. You continue to go along with it believing that at the least it is a legitimate system. In many cases, however, I'm sure you fully support the state's nefarious activities (especially when it comes to the military).

Heh, bet you didnt throw those FAFSA grants away when they showed up did you?

And your again, talking yourself into a circle, what you are saying is basicaly a large consensus to get rid of the government. I know it really burns you but thats what it is.

Still in college? Guess the old saying is true, "theres nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge..."

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
So Diss, have you stopped paying sales tax?

Yep, and so has everyone else, except business owners. See section 3 of This chapter of Power & Market

Is income tax not being taken out of your check?

I'm a full time college student, so no.

Ya I thought so. So much for "wishing" govt away.

I never said an individual could just 'wish' government away. What I said was that if there was a widescale ignoring of government, it would indeed go away. Even the most despotic regimes are based on popular support. If the majority of the population treated government as they would a regular stranger or as a violator of their property, the government would cease to exist. The IRS has a hard time collecting income tax now, for instance. Imagine if even 75% of the population no longer believed the IRS had legitimate authority to tax. Or imagine even further if people saw the Federal Reserve as the scam that it is and went back to a monetary system based on precious metals. Say goodbye to the modern state.

Just like anyone, I can be intimidated by force. But the difference between you and I is that I know that I'm being victimized by an unjust and cruel government. You on the other hand are working for The Man, and really have no idea what you are supporting. You continue to go along with it believing that at the least it is a legitimate system. In many cases, however, I'm sure you fully support the state's nefarious activities (especially when it comes to the military).

Heh, bet you didnt throw those FAFSA grants away when they showed up did you?

Why should I? I've already paid out big time to the state in lost opportunities due to massive stifling of economic activity. I should get every dollar I can get back from the state, especially since I without a doubt will be a taxpayer over my working life rather than a tax consumer. What you are implying is that I should increase my tax burden even further. You first.

And your again, talking yourself into a circle, what you are saying is basicaly a large consensus to get rid of the government. I know it really burns you but thats what it is.

We have already gone over this before. I don't think it is worth it to repeat myself.

Still in college? Guess the old saying is true, "theres nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge..."

It doesn't take much knowledge to know the truth. And the truth is that the state is a scam of unknowable proportions. It makes sense that you would think that it is dangerous for people to know the truth, since you support the state.

 

[Train]

So you're

A) A hypocrit

B) Unable to accept anarchy is in fact a Catch 22

C) Somehow smarter after just a few years of college, than the other 99.99% of the population that know anarchy is a dream.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
So you're

A) A hypocrit

So you are basically saying that if I am accosted by a highway man and robbed, and he takes $100 from me but gives $10 back I shouldn't take the $10? I am a 'hypocrit' by 'benefitting' from the highwayman's great social welfare programs?

B) Unable to accept anarchy is in fact a Catch 22

Your statement lacks meaning to me.

C) Somehow smarter after just a few years of college, than the other 99.99% of the population that know anarchy is a dream.

It has very little to do with intelligence. I've known very smart people who believe in things that I consider to be ridiculous (especially when it comes to certain religions they believe in). Intelligent people can fall prey to false premises just as easily as someone who is totally uneducated. If I tell you a fairy tale about the Constitution, government and legitimate state authority as a child, you will probably go through the rest of your life believing this stuff. You cannot set up a scientific experiment proving or disproving social contract theory, nor can you refute it using mathematical theorems. The refutations of authoritarian fairy tales are subtle and abstract. Even famous philosophers have completely overlooked them. In fact, Locke invented a rather absurd concept of 'tacit consent' to try to make his homesteading theory coincide with the concept of the state.

Over hundreds of years we have seen the purging of inaccurate/false information from the physical sciences, but modern political philosophy is still riddled with fallacies. Why? Because you can use mathematical reasoning and emperical testing to show something is false in the physical sciences. Not so with fairy tales that are assumed to be true from the outset and cannot be physically proven false. If I tell you that gravity pulls up towards the sky, you can make a damning case against my premise by dropping a stone on the ground. If I tell you that president Bush lacks legitimate authority over the citizens of America and that his edicts are non-binding, how are you going to prove me wrong? This 'authority' is intangible. It is something that is in your head. You could explain how his 'authority' defies logic and is contradictory in a lot of ways, but this is simply nowhere as near as effective as the stone dropping with the false premise regarding gravity.

So the fallacies are passed down from generation to generation.

David D. Friedman has a PhD in physics and a popular book on economics called 'hidden order.' He is also an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist. Would you say that he is unintelligent?