You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Statism or Anarchism: Which has the greater burden of proof?
If it's not special pleading then it's argumentum ad baculum; you're absolutely right. How could there be a contract if there's no capacity to not agree to the contract without it resulting in violence being used against you? Would they say that there's a contract between a mugger and his victim? How about between a rapist and his victim? Doubtfully. Excellent points man
Any type of system that a statist advocates that involves some form of "democracy" or "representation" rather than outright violence (might makes right), is a system that at some point must have been voted on unanimously by its members. In order to have a democratic election, you must first have agreement on the democratic process itself. The regression never holds to any actual unanimous consensual agreements.
So, basically, there is no proof of any consent to be governed if you as an individual have not consented to it. There's simply no getting around that fact...except to effectively say, "Comply or die," or "Love it or leave it" if you're allowing them to escape. Both are equally morally repugnant and logically inept arguments.