My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something. None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system.
These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. Flawed to the point of extreme intellectual laziness and blatant disregard for historical truth.
Also, some other notes about your last reply:
1. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool of the "dominant paradigm" and "incapable of research". If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave.
2. Our societies today have real, systemic problems. These problems are important. But your current rhetorical approach (domination! exploitation! slavery!) is very ineffective. It makes you sound like a crack-pot. This isn't intended as an insult or meant to discredit you. I'm simply describing my perception -- one I'm sure many people share -- and offering some advice regarding rhetoric. You don't have to change your claims, just tone it down and be more specific.
These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. Flawed to the point of extreme intellectual laziness and blatant disregard for historical truth.
Also, some other notes about your last reply:
1. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool of the "dominant paradigm" and "incapable of research". If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave.
2. Our societies today have real, systemic problems. These problems are important. But your current rhetorical approach (domination! exploitation! slavery!) is very ineffective. It makes you sound like a crack-pot. This isn't intended as an insult or meant to discredit you. I'm simply describing my perception -- one I'm sure many people share -- and offering some advice regarding rhetoric. You don't have to change your claims, just tone it down and be more specific.
(edit: organization and typos)