Of course there are. Anyway, when did I say here?
No, you just don’t understand him (meanwhile posting strawmen and red herrings). Governments gain their legitimacy from the illusion that they’re just. As long as the poor accept welfare they see it as just and so does everybody else. If the poor refused to voted and managed to muster the moral and intellectual strength to realised they’re holding themselves in chains then they’d stop. As it is, it’s far easier to vote money from others than to work for it.
You assume when I say government rests on consent that I mean uninimous consent. I think you know I meant that, so I’ll just accept you’re being pedantic. Otherwise you’re confused and eager for conflict.
The poor don’t vote? That’s news.
You’re conflating libertarianism with socialist appeals to the emotion. I couldn’t give a damn about the poor really.
There’s plenty of right libertarians who reject state and corporate power, and even the political process. Hoppe for example, I wonder why you’re not too keen on him? And yes you’re doing everything you can do defend “anarcho” communists who detest property rights.
Only, childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.
It’s clear enough, and can be dealth with through polycentrism.
No, I’m not. I just understand that people have an incorrect perception of what anarhcism entails and you wish to carry on using the word. You placate your leftist buddies. I on the otherhand recognise the strategic importance of dropping this word and finding a more appropriate one.
Finally, you figured something out. I suggest you read Hoppe’s chapter in D:TGTF on this. You seem to be drifting from the original topic.