I think you missed my point. I'm not particularly invested in the notion of liberalism, nor am I overly concerned about the death of Bhutto per se (the aftermath may prove somewhat troubling on the other hand.) My problem is with a certain implicit naive humanism that runs through your arguments that can be found in a lot of anarchist theory, which posits that structures of authority are somehow alien to this essential nature. The difficulty is that these modes of authority are both structural in nature, and are not merely supported through repressive power, but also occur through the spontaneous 'consent' of its subjects. I think that its worth noting that the various attempts at transforming authoritarian societies through assassination have not been overly successful. If anything, the reverse has occurred. I am sympathetic with the goals of the anarchist political project, but to cut off the head of a political structure without transforming its body will inevitably lead to disaster (to paraphrase Spinoza from the political treatise.) robert wood
> Oh brother. I have every expectation that if I repeated what I posted to
> this list to any of my anarchist friends, they would agree with me.
>
> Some of you are just uncomfortable with this, because you cling to
> liberal beliefs that the political system can be changed by electing
> leaders into office who reflect your beliefs.
>
> How is that working out for the planet?
>
> I'll argue that my position on the beautiful demise of heads of state is
> a very humanitarian vision. I want to live on a planet where there
> aren't any more governments, states, or idiots who want to rule over
> people.
>
> Chuck
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>