Dennis:
> ...
> Sadly, we don't live in an anarchist world (we don't even live in a Pokemon
> world, for if we did, we could call on Charizard or Mankey to take out the
> evildoers), though there are elements and aspects of the anarchist ideal
> that do exist in everyday life. But this ongoing thinking that you display
> here -- "Now how do I see this through anarchist eyes?" -- is really no
> different than any sectarian you can name. But then, that's beauty of
> anarchist thought: it covers a wide range of perspectives.
If people work out an even semi-coherent set of thoughts about politics, I would expect them to attempt to use them on the world as it is, or change them. So I don't see why you fault Chuck0 for attempting to come up with an response to the supposed threat of ObL which fits in with his theories and preferences. The implication of your objection as given is that you have another theory which states that all attempts to see the world coherently are "sectarian" and therefore bad. But this would also be "sectarian" in the sense you seem to be using the word. Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? The notion that everyone's head _ought_ to be filled with an completely inconsistent jumble of ideas is engaging; if I could adopt it, it would save me a lot of trouble; but that _ought_ seems to allow consistency to creep back in .... camel's nose in the tent and all that.
-- Gordon