I'm still waiting for you to explain where you talk about organisations in the OP. — Banno
Bartricks denies any legitimacy to the state, which means he needs to move to the US where we lay seige to the Capitol when we feel like it. — frank
Why do Australians accept the authority if the state? — frank
Why do Australians accept the authority of the state? — frank
didn't choose to live a life here. That is something others - my parents - have made me do. — Bartricks
our parents have violated our rights and have voluntarily exposed us to the risks of living. — Bartricks
Why do Australians accept the authority of the state? — frank
if there is no state I am still entitled — Bartricks
If you insist on debating the premise anyway, try giving an argument against it instead of just saying the equivalent of "nuh uh" or acting like this is some novel complete nonsense that nobody in their right mind would legitimately defend. — Pfhorrest
Entitlement is a social construct — unenlightened
Even if so, "society" and "state" are not synonyms. — Pfhorrest
if they so wish, can decide to protect my rights — Bartricks
An interesting point of view, though why would the state in this case be justified in dictating in what way parents shall provide for their children? — Tzeentch
You talk of rights, but you do not explain where rights come from. — Bitter Crank
Once upon a time there were 10 early Homo sapiens adults kwho happened to be the only sentient species within the very large valley they found themselves in. The 10 were not related (beyond being the same species) and they had never met each other before. Each person was on his or her own, wandering about, foraging for nuts, berries, and tubers or fashioning spears and killed small game.
When one of the early people wanted to engage with someone else they used gestures and inarticulate noises, since they didn't have language yet [note, language isn't the issue here]. If one of them wanted to trade a roasted squirrel for some nice currants, the trade could be worked out.
Once upon a later time, 100 people happened to live in close proximity to each other. Some of the people were children, some of the people were their parents, and some of the people were not related to anyone else. They tended some plantings of grains, but they still foraged and hunted. They could communicate with each other, so if they wanted to engage with each other, it was easy.
The place where they lived did not have a name. It wasn't organized. Shelters and piles of garbage were helter-skelter. There was no communal storage bin. Everybody kept their own little store of grain.
Once upon a still-later time, 1,000 people lived together in a city with stone buildings. They raised grain and lentils, onions and parsley. They do not hunt or forage. A very minor potentate rules over the city and controls everything.
The very minor potentate divided up some of the land into little plots and said each person could raise whatever they wanted on the and, and they could keep it, except for 2% of the crop which the very minor potentate said belonged to him. People didn't have much in the way of material stuff, but they did have a little.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.