Unfortunately you keep proving my point: you seem unable to argue your position for yourself, making claim after claim without any argument, evidence, explanation, while ignoring any serious flaw in your views.
'government'/ authority' is a myth.
Yep, such 'authority' is collectively given to the government by the people. By the way, in almost every single society (independent of whether government exists or not), leaders arise (even at village / clan level). The more organised leaders have lieutenants. The larger the society, the more complex the leadership mechanisms tend to be. Where there are competing leaders within the same area (whether rural, city, or country), 'territories' tend to arise. This occurs throughout all history, and throughout all lands, regardless of your beliefs of anarchy.
It is an illusion, it only exist between people's ears.
Yep, we agree with this. Just like money is an illusion (which even economists admit). But that illusion has real effect, for it is an illusion collectively accepted by the people.
It seems you don't really understand what I mean with 'illogical'
Considering you have never actually logically argued why it is illogical, I'd say there is a good chance I don't know what your version of illogical entails. If I had to guess, I'd go:
- no person can truly make any other person do anything they don't want to
- therefore 'authority' doesn't actually exist over another - it can only be granted by one individual to the other. Ie. it is always within the individuals power to take back that granted authority. This means authority doesn't actually exist, but rather is a consented transaction
- government being a form of granted authority, doesn't actually exist, but rather is a consented transaction, and as per the very start, the individual can refuse to continue to consent, meaning government no longer, and never really existed
And also that government isn't within the realms of pure logic. It has no foundation in pure logic.
The above logic, while flawed, is as close as I can get to what I think you are trying to say. Now, that is what it appears you mean..but as you've never actually bothered to try and argue your own position for yourself
, that is also a guess on my part.
He also didn't appear at all interested in the benefits of well run government
Of course he didn't go into that! That is an impossibility by deafult!
This response is vague. It could mean ‘1. government can’t exist’ or ‘2. government can’t provide benefits’
1. I'm presuming you aren't arguing that the State doesn't exist (as not even your video lecturer is trying to do that) - because if you are trying to do that, then you are arguing against the flow of money (which is a logical transaction, being based largely on computer code), the existence of structured laws (which written words and their structure exist), with mechanisms to back up those laws (which mechanisms exist and function to back them up), the existence of contracts between the State and Private enterprise (which exist), the existence of State run insitutions (they aren't run by private enterprise, and the pay for them comes from that flow of money), the existence of roads (which are produced at the behest of the State), etc, etc, etc. The existence of State is different from whether or not it should exist as a logical entity
. That existence has direct evidence: it functions & acts as a State in thousands of ways. It also has reverse inferred evidence: people acting as a collective could not function in a similar way to a State without agreeing to rules that would effectively turn the decision makers into a State.
2. If you mean government can’t provide benefits, well, if you answer my previous list of benefits provided by a State
, which you ignored at the time, then perhaps we have a foundation to talk about this.