RE: Principles and Predictions
1 - The people are real, the buildings are real, the guns are real, the "authority" (the RIGHT TO RULE) is not, without which it doesn't fit the definition of "government."
Are you saying government does not exist? Or are you saying government keeps order regardless of your particular definition of authority? If it's the former, you don't need to argue anything because you have anarchy. If it's the latter, then authority doesn't matter because groups of representatives chosen by voters are keeping order. Either way your analogy is pure BS because you're comparing the removal of something nonexistent to the removal of something which exists.
2 - If "government" could only do what you have the right to do, it wouldn't be "government." Care to try again?
Care to ask a question that makes sense? I delegated my authority to protect myself using force in my example. You might want to actually respond to that, instead of doing what you accuse "statists" of.
"I delegated my authority to protect myself using force in my example."
You can delegate the right to defense to other agencies. You can even group together with others and delegate your right to defense as a group.
However you have no right to steal. Nor does anyone in your group. So you cannot delegate the right to steal to your agency. You can have all the delegate defense you want, provided you pay for it without theft.
You also do not have the right to force others to join your group. So therefore you cannot delegate to your agency a right to force others to join. Therefore your agency cannot enforce itself as a monopoly on defense.
Which is what the question is really about.
Complaining about the question. Yep, that's on the list.
Putting any form of valid criticism "on the list" does not make it invalid. Even if I say you're right that I can't delegate rights I don't have, you need to prove I've delegated rights I don't have... Which you have not done because you are Begging the Question.
Telos just hears what he wants to hear. Government exists the same way Santa Claus exists. I think the mistake is saying that Santa Claus isn't real, he is real in the minds of children and some people aren't ready to hear otherwise.
Nice post though, I for one enjoyed the Santa Claus analogy
@jeza I think there's some confusion there with your answer. It seems to me that belief in something cannot be the qualifier for its existence. Santa Claus does not exist simply because the minds of children think he exists. The ability of some omnipresent being to bring gifts around the world simultaneously one day a year does not manifest simply because some people believe that it will. The only thing that can happen as a result of a belief in something is the actions of the believers. Everyone who has thought about it understands that the purpose of the Santa Claus myth is to convince children that they should behave in certain ways, and they will be rewarded or punished by the god, but their behavior is a product of their own thoughts only. Their behavior is not a product of the actions of Santa Claus.
Government is essentially the same thing. Government doesn't do anything, individuals do the things. Individuals may be acting on the assumption that the mythical entity, government, exists, but government is not acting upon the world any more than Santa Claus is.
Now in answer to what @telos was saying, the reason we don't have anarchy is not because government actually exists, but because people believe it does. People act and allow others to act based on that belief only. If the belief stops, the behavior stops, and therefore government is a myth. But as long as most people believe in the myth, rulers have real power, and therein lies the problem with achieving an anarchic society.