Larken's 5 Questions and John's 10

Larken recently created a YouTube video against Austin Peterson's 5 Reasons I'm Not an Anarchist. Tangentially, I recently wrote against Austin's article as well.

In the last 5 seconds of the video, Larken asks 5 questions <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OktoHN0FDTM&feature=youtu.be&t=9m50s">which he claims, once answered, will show that "there is no one, no one in the world, who can give a consistent, rational, moral justification, for believing in government at all."

Before I get to the questions, I would point out that Lark en and I are both anarchists but I think we are rather different types. I oppose government as a pragmatist on the grounds of economic efficiency and utility. Larken has a moral opposition to government. Larken not only opposes the state, but the concepts of authority and government per se. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OktoHN0FDTM&feature=youtu.be&t=10m25s">He claims "...the belief in authority, which includes the belief in government, is horrendously destructive, it is the primary threat to humanity...and it's time for it to change."

Importantly, the belief in authority also includes the belief in God. In contrast to Larken, I claim that authority and government are inescapable, necessary, moral, and proper. I'll ask 10 questions which should help to establish various aspects of my view on authority.

Larken's 5

1. Is there any means by which any number individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
   1. Yes and no. Two sorts of rights exist and both have cases where individuals may cause other individuals to come into possession of rights they would not otherwise have, but this causal relation is not a matter of delegation. These rights frameworks do, however, provide mechanisms for the emergence of unique rights for a traditional state and other entities.
   2. De facto rights exist and divine rights exist. De facto rights exist when a person cannot be prevented from conducting some action.
      1. It is the case that individuals may collectively conduct actions which none of them could conduct individually. While a person may build a widget in a week, 2 people may be able to build a widget in a day.
      2. Building quickly may be seen as a fundamentally different action than building slowly. A de facto license to a new action has been granted through collective action.
      3. If building a widget results in the ability to execute a moral action, such as saving a life, there is a since in which building 2 widgets is more moral than building 1 widget.
      4. It could be the case that
      5. This can refer to simple aggregation, or more complex concepts of economies of scope, scale, network effects, and synergy.
      6. While collectives have a de facto right to certain actions which individuals have no right to do, it does not follow that the collective entity needs to be a traditional state.
   3. Divine rights exist when God gives either a moral license or requirement for something.
      1. God gives unique moral license and requirements to national rulers, education instructors, and others.
      2. When individuals elect a person to the office of President, for example, God may chose to give that person unique moral license and requirements. On the other hand, God may view democracy as fundamentally different from God-chosen kings, autocrats, and so on.
      3. When individuals allow a person to work as a teacher this may also result in God, not the individual, giving additional moral requirements to the new teacher. God's moral allocation is not unique to the case of the traditional state.

John's 10

s