How is 2 + 2 = 4 not verifiable?
Because there’s no “2”–or any other number–ontologically out there.
So you’re saying that for me to be willing to apply intellectual theory to any part of my life I have to be open to applying all types of intellectual theory, even if they involve massive political paradigm shifts?
Yeah.
I see. Something seems fishy about that but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
There’s nothing fishy about it; you simply have to recognize that you can’t use a positivist approach in the a priori sciences.
Lol, so basically…even if we privatize the military and what I think will happen does happen it won’t prove that I was right?
The question you need to ask prior is: why would the military be privatized?
That’s a very difficult question. My immediate thought is “if it were decided that defense as a common good were no longer required or desired.”
You couldn’t show a link between the two events without an a priori argument.
Required or desired by whom or what?
So I couldn’t say: "Here’s step one: military is privatized, here’s step two: a few very wealthy individuals purchase the services of 100,000 troops and order them to attack a domestic location (let’s say Atlanta because I’m from there) here’s step three: we have no way of defending ourselves from this attack because there’s no national military here’s step four: the few wealthy individuals take over Atlanta and now we’re thinking we should’ve kept the military around?
By the people of the US who vote in general elections.
You could, but you’re treating the military as borg drones. Further, you’re treating the military as mercenaries. Justification is required.
So they would approve an amendment?
That is an a priori argument, not an observation of events, and a bad one at that. Why would wealthy individuals go to the enormous expense of raising an army of 100,000 troops to attack Atlanta? That is illogical and unhistorical.
They ARE drones, they take orders and don’t ask questions. They would be mercs under a private system. Hell, that’s the basically the definition of a mercenary: a soldier who fights for private gain.
Ok, fine, somewhere other than Atlanta. California, New York, I don’t care. Why? For power. It’s not an observation yet. But I’d bet dimes to dollars we’d see something like this if militaries were ever privatized to the extent anarchists want them to be. Again, this is a stupid argument because…I mean it’s just not gonna happen.
I guess so. To be honest, I don’t know exactly what the procedure would be for disbanding the military. But maybe an amendment.
Then this is neither an apriori argument nor a historicist argument, so why are you still complaining? You’ve admitted you know nothing about the facts.