I'm wondering how that ties into one's parents naming them.
It doesn't at all.
I'm wondering how that ties into one's parents naming them. Do infants tacitly consent to their own names? Are parents in violation for giving their children names that are not explicitly consented to?
You realize people can change their names, and a name is just a label. Just because you give something a name, say, I start calling your Pinnochio Stiltskin, doesn't mean that's your name, the name you answer to, the name others will use, or the name you want to use.
I mean, are you trolling or what?
I'm still looking for some material, anything that does not presume from the get-go that government is evil.
We don't presume government is evil, we can and have proven it repeatedly.
The best that [sic] critics have been able to come back with, is that the evil is necessary.
I'd like to come to that conclusion with evidence, not just because some ideologue tells me so.
What is stopping you? There is a ton of discussion here on the topic, plenty of people to discuss it with, and lots of sources and materials presented.
As I tried to say to Emp, it's your job to do the research. You've got people here willing to assist, but if you refuse to put in the legwork, how can you expect to discover anything new?
If you sit next to someone and get stabbed, do you get upset at the person for violating a tacit social contract, or do you acknowledge that there was no agreement and your bodily integrity is fair game?
That's not a social contract. That's ethics which is a social norm. Social norms != social contracts. A social contract is a very specific idea, and I think you are applying it to other ideas.
If someone stabs me under common law, they are fair game unless they make restitution.
If they choose not to make restitution, they are out-law (outlaw) and they can be hunted like a dog.
Ethics are reciprocal and universal. Where an ethical relationship cannot exist (see above conversation with Pseudo Nym re: animals) then there cannot be expectations of ethical behavior.
I think you've got 2 issues in this discussion.
1. You're misusing terms to say what you want to say. Indeed, this is why I asked you to define terms, so you could be explicit and clear. If we're not speaking the same language, it's going to be very hard to have a productive discussion.
2. After our PM where you claimed that you rejected facts that lead to outcomes you didn't like, I am not sure what to expect going forward. If you believe government is good, you will reject any evidence, regardless of how solid or conclusive it is (see my last post in this thread to Kiopa_Matt).
I'd love to argue for anarchy, but if the deck is stacked against me like this, it's probably not worth my time.
If you'd like to discuss this, I'd like to take a different approach. A basic Socratic style inquiry because people randomly challenging anarchism without laying out the premises has wasted a lot of time. It will only take a handful of short posts for me to illustrate my position.
Do you believe that some actions are right, and some actions are wrong?
