I vehemently disagree with "pro-government is equivalent to pro-violence," except for a very permissive definition of violence.
For an opposing viewpoint, I present my parable about anarchy. My story is not pro-government, it's pro-coordination.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Please consider the possibility that what you say is "very permissive" is realistic, and you are willfully blind, i.e., defending a superstition you were taught from childhood, and have a strong emotional attachment to, as evidenced by your being "vehement" in disagreement. The consequences, if you are wrong, are catastrophic.
Of course! I spend a lot of time in my life making sure I'm not willfully blind. I consider that possibility all the time. I frequently reevaluate my "superstitions," and often change my mind accordingly. This time around I'm looking at anarchy (mostly because Steem has become such an anarchist echo chamber), and all my posting about it in the past few days has been part of my process of questioning my presuppositions about it.
Mostly, I'm finding my presuppositions confirmed. The problem with anarchy as I see it at the moment is that it rejects the very coordination that it assumes. Most anarchists (all anarchists?) don't even seem to see that contradiction.