If he ever gets around to actually addressing the substance, it might get interesting. Instead, he seems to have a hundred different ways to repeat the false assertions: "You consented! It's legitimate! They represent us!" Oddly, he then proclaims that he doesn't believe in morality. I'm not sure how someone can so zealously advocate for the RIGHT to rule (political "authority"), if he doesn't believe in such a thing as "right."
If he ever gets around to actually addressing the substance, it might get interesting. Instead, he seems to have a hundred different ways to repeat the false assertions: "You consented! It's legitimate! They represent us!" Oddly, he then proclaims that he doesn't believe in morality. I'm not sure how someone can so zealously advocate for the RIGHT to rule (political "authority"), if he doesn't believe in such a thing as "right."
I've debunked this post as well.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@satire/anarchy-exposed-response-to-larkenrose-s-political-mythology-101-part-two
Moral relativity and a universally applied code of ethics are not, necessarily, contradictory.
As a moral relativist, I will contend that the NAP is the best defense of that relativity.
Hmm.... Sounds like an article I should write...
Would be glad to read it.
I've made it "interesting" for you by addressing the "substance"
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchy-exposed-making-it-interesting-for-larkenrose-representative-government-is-consensual
No kidding, eh? I tried following along as best I could, but some of those Gladwell-esque leaps of logic were just too great for me.
Thanks for reading my work! Feel free to point out which parts you found unclear and I'll explain my logic in greater depth.