Disproving a Common Argument – Law is Philosophical, it Requires no Evidence

Published on May 27, 2016 by Marc Stevens

This is a common retort used by those who believe in states and hate my work. When confronted with the truth that there’s no evidence political rules (“laws”) apply to anyone, the apologist argues, “Law is philosophical, it requires no evidence.” It’s claimed that I start with a faulty premise, that I’m asking for evidence where evidence is not required. Why not? Because philosophy. This is ridiculous as I will show. Article here http://marcstevens.net/articles/dispr…

Start the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *