Quite the opposite. Chomsky has also made the point that no matter the nature of the state its power is ALWAYS derived from the people. If the population were to withdraw its consent, en masse, the state, no matter how repressive, could not withstand it.

Once the authority of the coercive state has been revoked, it could no longer protect unjust structures and they too would disappear. The only social structures remaining would be those that had the consent of the people.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin William Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 6:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Anarchism and Chomsky


Chomsky said in "Interview with Read and Black Revolution (1995)":

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism:
the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority,
and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

Doesn't this mean that a a coercive government structure is justified,
and required, for the purpose of enforcing the burden of proof
requirement and the dismantling of structures that can't meet it?

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701