If I am losing it why did you change the subject?

We started off talking about theory, method, fact and science.

And now we are pivoting to a discussion on anarchy, society and state.

And if you thought I lost the debate we were having on theory, then I have some ocean front property, in Arizona..

It seems to me that your "no government" based society is based on "Rouseallian" presumption that mankind is good and will always seek cooperation over conflict if given the choice.

I.e
Rousseau presumption:
Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him recover out of mutual respect/love and together they live in harmony.

John Locke presumption:
Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he helps him out of self interest and together they strive to conquer nature.

Thomas Hobbes presumption:
Man comes over a dying man in the woods, he quickly stomps his skulls in and nicks his stuff because he knows the dying man would do the same to him if given the chance.

Rousseau based his presumption on the theory of the supposed noble savage, something that is still embraced by hippies today, but disproved by factual evidence of savages in all places of the world. As far as epistemology goes, you can observe an event or events and make generalizations that this is a general law or natural law, but stating that theory/fact will always happen is comparing a given number against infinity which will always make the theory/fact fallible because you cant have infinite amount of data. But then again that whole argument is an oxymoron, because it is impossibility in itself. We have to work with what we have in the metaphysical framework given to us by God, and hypothesis proven to be qualitative/quantitative true is a fact until disproven, that it may be disproved doesn't make it any less valid.

Yeah Hobbes saw government as a necessity as a protection for the individual against the mob, he lived through the english civil war and saw it first hand. The difference between Locke and Hobbes is essentially that Hobbes believes the state to be a covenant between citizen and Monarch, and no matter how bad the Monarch can be, the alternative which is a state of nature (the strong preys on the weak, i.e socialist state the mob preys on the individual) the Monarch is always preferable. Whereas Locke believes the moment government stop protecting private property rights of citizens is the moment the covenant is broken.

Universal values, now thats a good discussion, from what I remember Socrates held the belief that a given set of values are superior, and these can be found universally in most cultures, but obviouslynot all. At the other hand you have the bronze age equivalents of modern day liberals called the Relativists that claimed no moral/cultural value is superior its all relative.

When it comes to savages this is perfectly reflected in tribes such as the "Korowai" as you described who the left claim to be culturally equivalent to western society. I have still to hear a good argument from a liberal/socialist on why Sharia is morally eqvivalent to our universal suffrage society though 

It is funny though, as you said in another thread some cultures have found the universal God given truths thousands of years ago, but the battle between those who embrace those values and the relativists is still the same as today.

Nothing has changed, you theorize that your form of non govt, govt, will somehow miraculously grow from the ashes of half the country not participating in elections.

There is no need to throw away a perfectly good form of governance only to replace it with a a proven failure, true Democracy, which is exactly what is being proposed in this thread by TL.

No one votes in a contract society so I dont know what is democratic about it.

That strikes me as a little absurd!