[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that was fun. I can see why you do it. Assert your way to victory FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have been a great post, if I hadn't put the argument backing the assertion after the assertion (which of course, you snipped out in your reply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, saying "it's been roasted" is nothing more than asserting your way to victory. So I understand why you do it -- it is alot of fun -- but merely because you say "it's been roasted" doesn't mean that a vast majority of respected political philosophers are suddenly on your side. Because I think just the opposite is true -- a vast majority likely hold the tacit consent theory to be valid, and disagree with you. I won't venture a very confident guess, but I'd somewhat confidently suspect at least 70%. And I doubt I need to remind you how few actually adhere to any kind of principles of anarchy, even if they believe tacit consent is bankrupt.

I doubt this needs to be said, but just in case: this is just some intraweb forum. Nothing you say here will ever have an impact so important that it will "roast" such a widely held theory. I know this forum is serious business, but not that serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think they would agree that my hotdog distribution scheme is also legitimate and valid? If they do not, can they provide a rationale for why one is legitimate and the other is not, other than might makes right?

The fact that a bunch of inconsistent "thinkers" say something is legitimate doesn't make it true. Your appeal to (inconsistent) authority is really no better than asserting your way to victory.