[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

I don't disagree with this.

However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree).

Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications.

I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive.

I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says I think local-level democracy is bad?