I did understand the point. The definition of anarchy that you are using apparently includes the principle of non-agression.Yes. It was this part that made me think that you'd misinterpreted me:
You'd probably need to architect the thing with everyone's agreement though, otherwise a lot of innocent people will probably have to die in the revolutionary process.
Sorry, I did make a fuller response but it got zapped in this cruddy editing window and I don't have the inclination to tediously rewrite it.
Suffice it to say that the point I was trying too make was that history would seem to indicate that a religo-political ideology "A"
which includes the principle of non-aggression and which is thus not
strongly reinforced by authorised/mandated violence and aggression, and which at the same time presumes to conflict with an established and more strongly reinforced (i.e., with
authorised/mandated violence and aggression) religo-political ideology "B"
, is unlikely to get very far.
There will likely be violence/aggression/bloodshed, probably caused mainly by members of "B"
, against "A"
"Occupy Wall Street" etc. and university students' passive demonstrations (remember the pepper-spraying cop?), would probably be examples of that. Sort of manifestations of tribalism.
The status quo
can tend to be fiercely protected by the establishment at times of challenge.