I've always been of the opinion that everyone is entitled to think what capacity, environment and reality allows, not to be denied the validity of the statements made. However, in the media is different, especially those in which information flows in one direction or has pretensions "educational" and that the opinions can be accepted as absolute realities and not just a bias observed by a driver / character well positioned in the communication environment.
few years ago I see a program called "The blessed word" is entertaining when knowledge of Word origins, however some of the drivers and in particular Paul Boulton insists every two or three programs to translate his politics, which makes sense because every man is a product of the complex and the ideas, philosophies and reading each who do. But I wonder, How valid is to say "Where possible, an unjust order that anarchy" in a Mexico that is increasingly militarized and more and more unfair in terms of human rights, purchasing power and distribution of access to educational opportunities and labor?.
understand What I ask myself who fear anarchy and lawlessness?. I think complete anarchy is difficult to be of any social structure, governments and power relations are characteristic of the human psyche, perhaps the struggle to define the structures and strengths of a suitable government majorities or minorities would discussion points, but the lack of government. Platearius groups to total anarchy, only be achieved through the development of individuals at all levels and only in a higher stage, which of course any man can achieve right now. I think the risk is always higher when you have authoritarianism. Paul Baullosa sounded like those that justified the dictatorship of Pinochet "For Salvador Allende would bring chaos to society" or the Franco dictatorship because of "the republic brought anarchy." There is a joke about the dictator's speech ....
"The Left has led us to the brink and we are thinking in the country have taken a step forward."
