I was in a conversation with a well-spoken activist--at least, that's what I'll label him for the purpose of ease--and we were enjoying an exchange about the principles of anarchy (see quote above). For example, anarchic philosophy calls for non-violence; anarchic philosophy emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual over above the collective; the responsibility of the individual is to provide for his own needs by the work of his own mind and hands, not by leeching off of the handouts of infrastructure when he is capable of doing otherwise.
However, our current socio-political climate does not allow for non-violence. Consider our nation's involvement in wars that have nothing to do with us (e.g., Iraq). Consider, also, that in Canada each person is in a holding pattern so far down in the lattice-work of control that considering yourself a 'sovereign' (solely over your own life, mind, and no-one else's) comes across as "eccentric" or "idiotic" or "crazy." Or, consider that taxes are enforced: you earn your living, your country takes money from you it didn't earned, puts it towards ends you may not support, and then threatens you with fines and possibly jail-time if you don't give over a portion of your money. This last example has the same rot and stink about it that the medieval church's enforced tithing did.
Whether or not I agree with these principles, I was given pause to think about who I am in contrast to the larger collective (society), and what the nature of our present collective is: are we living in an actual democracy? Is democracy defined simply by being able to vote at elections? Or is there something more to it that isn't being effected in Canadian culture? If I were to consider myself a sovereign, how would that effect my participation in the common-place infrastructure of society? Is it "criminal" to not give your money to a bigger group of people (the government) when they haven't earned it, and simply because they declare it criminal to not give money to them? Should the government be re-labeled Big Vinny, and considered a sophisticated leg-breaker?
I don't know. At the very least, I was forced to think of some very interesting alternate points of view. And, being the curious person that I am, I appreciated the mental exercise said activist gave me.