What is anarchism?

Blackflag: What if I had my own state of 10 people, and you were born into it? We vote that we don't like you and you should be executed. Still don't think that is tyranny?

I find this particularly funny. By the principal of social contractism in a natural law framework, the only way you could do this is if you voted to kill everyone in the state including yourself. I would suggest that you be the first to die

Look, it's abundantly clear to me you don't want to understand basic jurisprudence theory. I've made this same point several times. It just feels like a repeat at this point.

y the principal of social contractism in a natural law framework
Are you coming back to reality yet? Giving people power to operate within any framework just gives them the ability to abuse said power.

I don't recognize your social contracts and the obligations you say I owe others. The authority isn't going to recognize it either, and to think otherwise is naive. Because if society functioned the way you think it does, states are unnecessary as people do not need them to voluntarily cooperate and make collective decisions.

Also respond to my entire post. You still haven't explained where and when I consented to an imaginary contractual obligation to the authoritative body that governs society, or even an anarchist society without an authority.

Blackflag: Yes I have, four times. I don't feel obligated to. My answer each time was that you consent by being a member of that society.

admin: Yes, but then the conversation took a turn when you said silence is not consent.

If silence is not consent, then explain how I consented with my silence?

Blackflag: ... and I disagree with abuses of power.

Society working together = state. To me there is no distinction.

Blackflag: You didn't, you consented via the positive action of being a member of that society.

Society working together = state
Incorrect. People working together is the definition of a society.

A state is an organized political group that claims to rule over the people within its set borders

Blackflag: Well then I oppose such states. I only recognize organized political groups that are formal representations of a social contract which defines mutually forfeited rights.

Blackflag: Again, I've proposed a naturalist framework, and you're arguing against a positivist one without listening to me. It's pretty stupid.

admin: I only recognize organized political groups that are formal representations of a social contract which defines mutually forfeited rights
Okay, so you believe in an organized group that does not rule over people, but then you claim disobedience should be met by being forced into jail. Which is it?

You didn't, you consented via the positive action of being a member of that society
That is the same exact thing as silence=consent

What if if a man on trial for rape said, "through positive action, she came during the rape."

Not an absolution that he is still a rapist, and still not consent from the victim

Blackflag: The group rules over themselves, because society IS the state by another name when that society has a social contract in place.

The court would determine whether that positive action was recognized as an instance of a forfeited negative right, and would determine that the man had violated the social contract. It has nothing to do with absolution.

The group rules over themselves, because society IS the state by another name when that society has a social contract in place.
Redefine words all you want, but society is not the same thing as a state. If you think that, then you are living in your own world where definitions don't matter.

The court would determine whether that positive action was recognized as an instance of a forfeited negative right, and would determine that the man had violated the social contract. It has nothing to do with absolution.
Doesn't answer my question.

I don't care what the courts think so much as I care what you think. If a woman comes during rape, does that mean that the event was not rape? When I contribute to society, does that mean I am consenting to the organized political force which manages my society?

Blackflag: Well if you define a state in a positivist framework then a state is incompatible with something like human rights, isn't it?

Qn 1. I think that would depend on the social contract, and I would hope, no.
Qn 2. No, but my answer would change to yes if you remove the word "force", as I don't accept you are being forced into the social contract.

No, but my answer would change to yes if you remove the word "force", as I don't accept you are being forced into the social contract.
Then you are a blind fool with no intention of being anything more than a mindless puppet.

If you do not explain in terms I can understand how I consented to this nonexistent contract, then I am left to believe you don't actually know what you are talking about yourself.

Blackflag: Imagine saying that to Einstein.

"I am too stupid to understand your explanation of general relativity, therefore you must not know anything about general relativity."

admin: "I am too stupid to understand your explanation of general relativity, therefore you must not know anything about general relativity."
Well actually Einstein was wrong about 99% of the things people accredit him for.

I have an IQ that is considered genius. If you can't explain it to me, then you must not understand it, IE, babbling nonsense

So I ask again. Explain to me how helping others is consenting to the authoritative body known as the state. Explain to me how not being actively resistant to the state is a sign of consent.

Blackflag: I usually find the people who brag about their IQ are just insecure jerks who could recognize some patterns one time. I refuse IQ tests for that reason.

I wonder what people "accredit" him for in your world. XD

I don't accept that a state is necessarily authoritative.
Not being actively resistant is not a sign of consent. Being actively involved is. If you want to be a part of society, follow the rules of that society. It's pretty simple.

The best way I can explain it:
Suppose you're doing a debate
Both sides agree to the rules by participating in the debate
If you break the rules, then you are seen to be not participating ie have forfeited the debate
It's pretty fair, no?