EmperorJulian

"The prey develop a state and task it (inter alia) to enact and enforce laws to protect the prey from predators."

That statement is completely unhistorical: a total inversion of what actually happens, and what has happened in reality. See Franz Oppenheimer's classic study: "the State". He shows how it always develops from the most successful armed gang taking over a territory and subjecting its population to its depredations; or by succession from such a group.

States develop the way ISIS is developing. If it had not been opposed by the West, it would probably have taken over its intended territory by now. And if it had been supported by the West, it might have a seat on the UN by now.

A state is by definition that group in society who claim a legal monopoly of the use of aggression, what you're confusedly calling "predation" (no-one's eating anyone's flesh so it's mere empty hyerbole). They legalise their own "predation" which is how they get all their funds, and carry out all their operations.

[Snip paragraph consisting of mind-reading, circularity, misrepresentation, mockery, sarcasm, double standards.]

We have already established, by your own admission, that you believe in unlimited state power to kill its subjects as slaves, the only limiting principle you would allow being "democracy".

So either admit it, or answer the questions that you ran away from last time.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16710&page=0#293576

So, according to you, in principle there's nothing wrong with shooting people dead or threatening to cage and rape them to force them to obey and submit to anything whatsoever so long as a majority vote for it, or rather, so long as a government voted for by a majority does the predation and enslaving? Please admit that's what you're arguing; but if not, why not?

And notice you changed your justification for predation and slavery? You were arguing it's okay if the state does it. Now you're disowning the state per se, and confining your defence to democratic states.

So at what point in Australia's history did the government acquire the right to shoot people for whatever it wants, as you maintain? If it doesn't have that right, why not, according to you?

Also, isn't "might is right" the opposite of a rule of just conduct? The opposite of ethics? Isn't the whole purpose of rules of just conduct to have some other principle of social relations than that the stronger will take from the weaker and attack them if they don't submit and obey? You do know, don't you, that Hitler and his national socialist party were democratically elected?

So how is your so-called "principle" any different from 'might is right'?

For the sake of intellectual honesty, could you please not go quiet and run away like you did last time, popping up here re-running all the same fallacies as if your your political and economic ideology has just been totally demolished, even according to your own terms. Instead please either answer the questions or admit that you can't because your belief system hypocritical and wrong, because you've never thought it through properly.