A person unencumbered by government is an objective reference point for a state of nature.
It’s not about being lawful, but being free. If there was no government to stop you, you’d be free to commit murder, discriminate, commit sodomy, etc.
People always live in relation to one another, but government being the monopoly on legitimate use of force is a comparatively new phenomenon.
I expressly laid out three arguments, number for your convenience. I’m marshaling more arguments in this post as I have in previous posts. That’s hardly a hand wave.
Then we agree.
You’re missing the point. I’ll lay this out again. I’m not exercising judgment. I’m saying that people will advocate the curtailing of a freedom but argue they’re not. They do that by semantics.
We’d all agree that certain freedoms should be denied; e.g. the freedom to murder. People in the US are hit over the head with the “land of the free” bullshit so hard they’d prefer to deny certain other freedoms without saying as much. That’s what I object to.
He’s my source for the idea of the state of nature. I’ve said as much. I’m applying it in a different way. I’ve said as much. I think maybe you should read Hobbes and see for yourself, don’t you?
But you’ve done nothing to show it’s not logical besides say it’s made up bullshit and appeal to Og.
I’ve made clear rebuttals to that, without implying dishonesty on your part.
By that logic the Pythagorean theorem is an appeal to tradition.
People have used the theorem for centuries because it works. People have referred to Hobbes’ philosophy because it works.
I’ve never said it should be limited to it. I said it’s a valid exercise.