The single most important political principle ever

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

Wait.... what? Bluth, what is this about?

[Czardas]

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

That makes absolutely no sense.

That I cannot delegate authority I do not myself possess makes no sense?
That if every one of us posseses zero authority to do something, then regardless of how many of us there are there is still overall zero authority for us to do something makes no sense?

That makes no sense because it starts from a false premise: that every one of us possesses zero authority to do something.

"Authority" isn't quantifiable, and "something" isn't defined properly.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

0 * 1/0 = 1.

Therefore, if you have an undefined number of people, the state has authority to do things the individual people do not.

Is there a clearly defined number of people that makes up a state? No. Q.E.D.

A) Your premise is incorrect.
B) Even granting your premises, your conclusion does not follow from it.

It makes just as much sense as your argument.

Since when did the zero property of multiplication become a "political principle," let alone "the single most important ever?"

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

0 * 1/0 = 1.

Therefore, if you have an undefined number of people, the state has authority to do things the individual people do not.

Is there a clearly defined number of people that makes up a state? No. Q.E.D.

0⁰ is still ERR, whether you like it or not.

0⁰ = 1. Calculators don't lie. D:<
Well, sometimes they do, but they can't be lying now, it would undermine my whole point!

Heh, I remember having to do a project on why 0⁰ is not 1 in 7th grade, which is why I responded. IIRC, it boiled down to being able to say 0⁰ is like dividing like-base terms, like 0⁴ / 0⁴, which boils down to 0/0 or ERR.

lol, clever white text... this is why it's never a good idea to let your brain take a vacanymoon while your fingers use the calculator... as I've learned so much in my mechanical engineering courses... D:

[Hydesland]

That I cannot delegate authority I do not myself possess makes no sense?
That if every one of us posseses zero authority to do something, then regardless of how many of us there are there is still overall zero authority for us to do something makes no sense?

Give me a practical example.

[Phenia]

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

That makes absolutely no sense.

That I cannot delegate authority I do not myself possess makes no sense?

That makes sense.

That if every one of us posseses zero authority to do something, then regardless of how many of us there are there is still overall zero authority for us to do something makes no sense?

That makes no sense, because we are more than the sum of our parts, and a group of people (say, a corporation, a union, a nation) has authorities that the individual members do not.

Think of your body. Not a single cell in your body has authority - legally, morally, intellectually, in any way. But, collectively, all the cells in your body (i.e., the entity I'm calling You), has sentience, has rights, has authority and capability and responsibility that no single cell has.

So, you're wrong.

[Bluth Corporation]

It makes just as much sense as your argument.

My argument makes perfect sense.

Is it really that difficult to see the relation between "If no one in the US possesses a given authority individually, then the people of the US as a whole also do not possess that authority" and "0 (the amount of that given authority each one of us possesses individually) * 300,000,000 (roughly the number of people in the US) = 0 (the total amount of the given authority possessed by the people of the US all together)?

[Bluth Corporation]

Think of your body. Not a single cell in your body has authority - legally, morally, intellectually, in any way. But, collectively, all the cells in your body (i.e., the entity I'm calling You), has sentience, has rights, has authority and capability and responsibility that no single cell has.

I don't think that's a valid comparison, and here's why:

An individual cell cannot reasonably be said to be a valid moral or political unit, whereas an individual (made up of cells) can be.

However, unlike an individual, which is NOT made up of valid moral/political units, all the groups you mention are themselves made up of units that are themselves valid moral/political units (specifically, individuals).

[Xsyne]

An individual cell cannot reasonably be said to be a valid moral or political unit, whereas an individual (made up of cells) can be.

Demonstrate both statements.

[Bluth Corporation]

Cells do not, and cannot, engage in political activity on their own. Individuals can, and do.

[Phenia]

I don't think that's a valid comparison, and here's why:

An individual cell cannot reasonably be said to be a valid moral or political unit, whereas an individual (made up of cells) can be.

Because my analogy is biological. A cell is definitely a valid biological unit. Each contains your DNA. Single cell interactions are what brought you into being. And yet, you are more than a collection of cells. You are more than the sum of your parts.

Just like a nation is more than a simple sum of its parts.

Would you prefer it if we treated you as just a collection of cells with no greater whole? Because your argument insists we treat the nation as a collection of individuals, with no greater whole.

[Fnordgasm 5]

Here.. let me sort this..

Since A=A, this makes me objectively right at absolutely everything! This somehow makes you wrong..

[Czardas]

It makes just as much sense as your argument.

My argument makes perfect sense.

Is it really that difficult to see the relation between "If no one in the US possesses a given authority individually, then the people of the US as a whole also do not possess that authority" and "0 (the amount of that given authority each one of us possesses individually) * 300,000,000 (roughly the number of people in the US) = 0 (the total amount of the given authority possessed by the people of the US all together)?

It's a logically consistent argument, but it starts from fuzzy premises.

What authority does nobody possess individually? Why? How can this authority be quantified? Can someone have 1 authority or 0.1 authority or 270 authority? Why? Et cetera.

[JarVik]

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

That makes absolutely no sense.

That I cannot delegate authority I do not myself possess makes no sense?
That if every one of us posseses zero authority to do something, then regardless of how many of us there are there is still overall zero authority for us to do something makes no sense?

For arguments sake;
Often those with authority act beyound what their authority stipulates.
Often those without any authority act regardless.
And sometimes those without authority seize authority for themselves.

[Xsyne]

Cells do not, and cannot, engage in political activity on their own. Individuals can, and do.

You have done nothing more than rephrase your position with no support.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Um, BC, could you stop being coy and just come out and say what authority you think you and the rest of us lack?

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Perhaps the argument could do with a closer look at what authority is. Philosophically, Bluth, you're correct - individual people have no right to authority over any other person, which is why the state is created and we give up some of our rights to create a body (hopefully) impartial enough to allow us to give them authority over us all.

But authority does not come from nothing. Authority is a manifestation of power - those with power, historically, enjoy the ability to mandate authority. So, when you say that no collective itself has authority, you're technically correct... when you ignore that such a collective of people enjoy enough power to control authority.

[GetBert]

I thought "Don't get caught" was the most important political principle

[Natapoc]

Since when did the zero property of multiplication become a "political principle," let alone "the single most important ever?"

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

It is right of course for special definitions of delegate, state, authority, act, zero, "everyone else." Without translating all these things into the same framework we have no basis for the comparison.

Also your argument depends on the state only having the "authority" given to it by the people. If you are trying to make a proof then you have to show that the state can have no powers that individuals did not delegate to it.

It seems like logic would be a more easy method to show that the state only has the powers delegated to it by the people and as such if a person does not deligate that power to the state then the state does not have the power over that individual.

If that is what you are trying to say is the most important political principle.

[Ryadn]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

But ln(0) = 1.

That's communist math, and we don't take kindly to it 'round here.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

WRONG
Most important
(0)*3^n = 5

[Fnordgasm 5]

Wouldn't it be funny if we lived in a world where legitimate authority actually mattered..

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

But ln(0) = 1.

That's communist math, and we don't take kindly to it 'round here.

It actually is, since it's wrong.

However, I redeemed myself with a proof of why 0⁰ isn't 1.

[Unchecked Expansion]

It makes just as much sense as your argument.

My argument makes perfect sense.

Is it really that difficult to see the relation between "If no one in the US possesses a given authority individually, then the people of the US as a whole also do not possess that authority" and "0 (the amount of that given authority each one of us possesses individually) * 300,000,000 (roughly the number of people in the US) = 0 (the total amount of the given authority possessed by the people of the US all together)?

Authority is not a mathematic value, it is a societal construct based on an acknowledged hierachy. In effect, we have granted authority to our governments by following their rules
A country cannot cater to every individual's desires, it can only try to support everyones needs

[Ryadn]

My issue with the premise (okay, ONE of my issues) is the purposeful vagueness of "authority", as if "authority" had an absolute value.

Do I have the "authority" to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? No.

Do I have the ABILITY to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? Provided they are weaker than I am, yes.

What we "can" do is very different from the agreed-upon rules of what we are "allowed" to do. Bluth's premise is based, once again, on the groundless idea that each individual has inherent rights which cannot be violated by another individual, and therefore cannot be violated by the collective. These rights do not inherently exist. Each individual possesses the ability to take from another, provided the individual has sufficient strength, or cunning, or means. I have no authority to shoot you dead, but, provided I have a suitable weapon, I have an absolute ability to do so.

Hence, society---self-imposed limits on what we CAN do for the benefit of all. Is this truly such a difficult concept?

[Nodinia]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

I thought it was "Don't get caught".