: ...the call for the abolishment of the nation-state is, by default, an insistence on a world-state. That is, an unopposed world rule under one leader. Robert; I realise that you may not be willing to admit this, but there are, in fact, other options. The anarchist communities that were being refered to are not simply minions of a higher-order authority that supersedes national authority. Anarchism, as a philosophical system, rejects all forms of external authority, not just the nation-state, but all forms. The rejection of the nation state does not imply support for a global monarch. What you are doing here is called "projecting."
You have a pre-conceived notion that anyone who disagrees with you is either an active agent or a brainwashed dupe of a global monarchist, communist, imperialist conspiracy. This has come up several times before in your other posts. In fact, there is no such conspiracy; there are no commies hiding under the bed, Robert.
What SDF was suggesting, which you seem to have completely ignored in your post, was that fundamental changes to the American education system might have long-term benefits, and I doubt that anyone who looks objectively at the situation could disagree.
The comment to which you did respond was not even Sam's, but Gideon's, and it was clearly labled as such in Sam's post.
You continue;
:Is this not a clear admission of world colonial rule under another name? It is indeed the desire to install (and to former colonials to reinstall) a monarch.
This is simply a fallacy, Robert. Anarchism is the absence of centralised authority. Anarchists deny the right of any one person to impose his or her will on any other. When you say anarchism is a form of monarchism, you demonstrate that your understanding of political philosophy is fundamentally flawed. The suffix "-archy" literally means "a form of rule or government," so "an-archy" literally means the absence of a form of government. It does not mean secret conspiracy of imperial corrupters.
Now I have a few specific points to make about your posts. You seem to have a deep seated fear of a secret cabal of imperialists. I realise that you draw this fear out of a few specific passages from the bible, particularly the Revelations of John on Patmos, and that you therefore assume that they are infallibly correct. However, unless and until you can provide evidence that such a conspiracy actually exists, and I mean real, empirical evidence, not just the words of a man that died a few thousand years ago, I'm going to continue to default to the assumption that you're just paranoid.
Let me put it this way, Robert. You appear to be the only person who sees this hidden cabal. Is it more parsimonious to assume that you, alone, understand all about a secret conspiracy that none of the rest of us can even see, or to assume that your perceptions might be mistaken?
Look up the phrase "Occam's Razor" in any introductory philosophy book before you answer.
-Floyd
