RE: Free Will
There may be some talking past each other here. Saying a product is bad, usually involves a problem in the quality axis.
It has been known for some time that there can be a majority consensus that a product is of poor quality but can still be sold to people who value the product even if the quality is inferior.
No matter how you slice it, subjective value is the pivot point of a free market. not majority consensus.
And since we are on the matters of subjective value, there appears to be much conflict between the 'engage' the system and the 'defect' out of the system movements.
Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?
The engage position would chisel away at the top levers of authority, while the defect position would chisel away at the base.
I know there is real tension and conflict of the positions, but I really don't see a down side to both working independently at the same time.
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves? If you attempt to heal a venomous bite with the same venom creating the problem, you end up poisoned all the more. Evil political mechanisms can never remedy evil political mechanisms. Only disobedience can do that. But. People are afraid to suffer. And that is why they suffer, I think, if I can be so presumptuous as to say so.
Excellent comment, and just to clarify the state is the top level of authority, lets call state 'social construct -A-'. An anarchist going in to dismantle the social construct, lets call him 'agent -B-'. We can call the executive order, or referendum or whatever legal document(s) that would be used to dismantle the state, 'social construct -C-'.
Now 'social construct -A-' is not the same as 'agent -B-' so asking the question :
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves?
Is similar to saying social construct -A- and agent -B- is the same entity. That issue from what I can see is not logically correct.
There can be a case made that social construct -C- may not be able to destroy social construct -A-. I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that there is near a zero probability of an event that social construct -C- will destroy social construct -A-.
I completely understand that position. I don't buy in to the idea the probability will be high, but also don't immediately assume it will be zero. On the grounds of probability is where you and I would likely start disagreement.
Historically, it has typically taken a social construct to destroy another social construct, so the tactic or strategy of using -C- to destroy -A- is sound. The biggest barrier I see is the degree of complexity of the constructs.
I completely agree that people are afraid to suffer, and agree to an extent that is why they suffer. The question I ask is if social construct -A- is creating more perceived discomfort than comfort? If significant discomfort then social construct -C- has support and agent -B- is just an agent.
Could be a semantics problem here but I couldn't agree more with:
"Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?"
and everything you said after it.
Both positions have the same goal.. both positions are likely necessary to succeed.
I appreciate it, and you make some good points.
There are some differences. The engage camp expects to engage and go into the social construct of state and dismantle at the power hub.
The defect camp is more a war of attrition/subtraction from the outside.