[JetSpiegel]

Let's take another political document I selected at random.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Should we dismiss this statement as irrelevant since the authors did not cite any sources? In fact, they go further, they reject any arguments from authority and hold this statements as self-evident! They don't even cite Aristotle or other "scholars who study politics and democracies".

A political statement is not falsifiable. To a 1000+ essay saying "I think anarchy trumps democracy as a political system", dismissing it because they don't cite source is a completely meaningless attack.

[aaron-lebo]

We don't dismiss that document as irrelevant because it had actions supporting it. They actually built a political system that was closer to those statements than what existed and it worked. Furthermore, those men (as evidenced by their writings) were aware of contemporary political thought, that's not apparent in this blog post.

A political statement is not falsifiable.

Political scientists do something like this every day.

I'm just saying if you want to do more than just philosophize, if you want to convince people, if you want systems of government to change, you've gotta up your game. You've got to at least acknowledge people who have already responded to your critiques already.

[krapp]

>In fact, they go further, they reject any arguments from authority and hold this statements as self-evident!

No they don't, they argue from the authority of a Creator.