[...continued]

What I asked you was, that if you choose a violent path (and I think that you will agree with me that states as we know them at present do employ violence), then since my path is different to yours, could you please, at least, have the decency not to claim that you do so either for my sake or in my name? Is that too big an ask?

Now if you choose to even ask me why I see things differently, why I neither share your goal in the first place, nor support violence to achieve it, then I can endeavour to explain and answer all your questions, which may include speaking of cosmology, theology, metaphysics and so on. Whether you ask me about either or both, is up to you.

Yuyutsu,

Yes, I agree that the point-by-point responses can cause the full context to be lost. I avoid them for that reason.

First off, my talk of adaptation was directly tied to your statement that practical governance has been "held firmly for centuries." Governance is not a static institution; it evolves naturally as societies change and grow. This isn’t merely my wish but an observable reality. The governance structures we see today, for all their flaws, emerged because humans need ways to manage large, interconnected societies. This evolution is a natural, organic response to the complexities of human existence.

That being said, you speak as though the onus is on me to justify governance without violence, give it up entirely, or admit that some degree of force is necessary. But this frames the debate as if my support for governance is an extraordinary position that requires defence. In reality, governance has evolved precisely because it protects, organises, and offers a framework for resolving disputes. And, again, history shows that this is an inevitability that emerges organically, not as some evil thrust upon us by a greedy few.

So, in a sense, my position is the default. Therefore, if we’re to seriously consider alternatives, then the burden falls on those proposing them to demonstrate how their system would function more effectively. Governance that has already proven itself over time and through practice.

(I should add, too, that none of this is not necessarily my “wish.” This has not thing to do with me; it’s not about what I want vs what you want. I could abhor governance and still acknowledge the need for it.)

This brings us to the question of how your ideal system (or lack of any system at all) would ensure justice, prevent exploitation, or manage conflicts? The absence of governance would lead to far greater harm, especially for vulnerable populations who rely on legal protections.

(Cont’d)

Cont’d)

And, as the Somalia experience showed, having governance ripped out from under us (as I suspect you would have done tomorrow, if it were up to you) ends in extreme chaos, violence, and warfare. Simply rejecting governance as "violent" or imperfect doesn’t address the realities of human society and the challenges it faces.

Speaking of which, I think you also need to define exactly how you’re using the word “violence.” You seem to be using it very loosely, and in a way that unfairly frames societies organising over many generations with images of goose stepping and police beating people in the streets with batons.

As interesting as your philosophical stance is, we need to recognise that governance emerged naturally for practical reasons - it wasn’t thrust upon us suddenly and arbitrarily. Its evolution reflects humanity’s need to balance individual freedoms with collective security and stability. If your alternative is to dismantle these structures, then it’s fair to ask how your system would prevent the kind of chaos or exploitation that governance helps mitigate. If the goal is to replace governance, there needs to be a clear and workable plan for how this new system would protect people and provide the structure that societies need to survive.

The question of why you see things differently is ultimately the reason why I'm still here. But I think you first need to explain what you mean when you say "violence," and what your alternative to governance would be. I'd also be interested in how you suggest we transition away from governance, come to think of it.

Sorry, obviously that should read:

(I should add, too, that none of this is necessarily my “wish.” This has nothing to do with me; it’s not about what I want vs what you want. I could abhor governance and still acknowledge the need for it.)

Kudos ttbn.

Yes Albanese seems to have signed the death warrant of the principle of free speech.

There have been issues with News and Opinion being confused for a while but social media seems to be obviously about opinion. Going after social media seems to be a new phase in the war against the peoples self sufficiency and their enslavement. It's depressing to see reality mimicking the fiction of the totalitarian dystopia of 1984. I hope that the people remember that this slavery was executed by the Woke Marxist Communists in the name of freedom when they go to the ballot box.

Perhaps Albanese wants to reverse the democratizing effects of social media. Freud was afraid of the dangerous crowd, the communist leaders called them counter revolutionaries, Bernays just had contempt for the masses and tried to subvert them using cheap emotional consumerism. It seems that social media has been the only place where people could speak their minds as this option has been destroyed in many other places.