you know the answer. find one counterexample, it makes no sense even in theoryhttps://twitter.com/triadaxiom/status/971081326962053121 …
-
-
Replying to @michaelmalice
What no one has ever been able to answer is how was it decided that democracy is legitimate. If the answer was they took a vote, it becomes an infinite regress. If the answer was it imposed, then it begs the question.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @triadaxiom @michaelmalice
In other words, given there are no examples of government that have a non-arbitrary foundation, to not infer that government Is by nature arbitrary is to evade the only evidence on offer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @triadaxiom
I dont care if it's arbitrary. Can you even imagine politicians sitting around and just keeping it to rights protection?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @michaelmalice
No, I cannot. Government has proven to be the mother of all moral hazards
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @michaelmalice
I'm not there yet. The condition that would give rise to dissolution of the state is the widespread acceptance of individual rights. But that is the same condition required for rights protecting government. So I'm not sure anarchy is any more realistic than limited government.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
no. the condition that leads to the dissolution of the state is its inability to enforce edicts. try censoring a book. it is literally impossible.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.