Neither courts nor laws will suffice to halt the descent into autocracy. Massive numbers of people will have to take direct action on their own initiative—in other words, to become anarchists.
So, you admit my point about some kid getting killed doing ‘direct action’ is valid, but then go on to say that the kid dying is irrelevant. I’m sure it’s relevant to the kid’s family.
You brought the topic of Luigi and egg-throwing here for some reason, but I cannot fathom why. The article is not about Luigi or egg-throwing.
Last I checked, there was a phenomenon named “concern trolling” which vaguely resembles your style, but I’m not quick to judge. Maybe your concern for egg-throwers is genuine. But how did you arrive at it?
The article was about democracy, law, whether law is worth following, and what determines if a strategy could win.
Among its most worthwhile parts, the article said:
If the defenders of democracy cannot offer anything more inspiring than a return to the previous state of affairs—the one that caused this catastrophe in the first place—they will lose, and they will deserve to lose. It will take a more ambitious and far-reaching vision to defeat oligarchy.
That’s funny.
So, you admit my point about some kid getting killed doing ‘direct action’ is valid, but then go on to say that the kid dying is irrelevant. I’m sure it’s relevant to the kid’s family.
I’m saying you didn’t read the article. :)
You brought the topic of Luigi and egg-throwing here for some reason, but I cannot fathom why. The article is not about Luigi or egg-throwing.
Last I checked, there was a phenomenon named “concern trolling” which vaguely resembles your style, but I’m not quick to judge. Maybe your concern for egg-throwers is genuine. But how did you arrive at it?
The article was about democracy, law, whether law is worth following, and what determines if a strategy could win.
Among its most worthwhile parts, the article said: