A Contrarian At Heart, I

That's What I'm Trying To Get Over: The Idea That Anarchism Offers A Description Of Equitable Relations That Go Way Back Rather Than A Hypothesis Of What The Future Should Look Like.

The Subject Of Walking Is, In Some Sense, About How We Invest Universal Acts With Particular Meanings. Like Eating Or Breathing, It Can Be Invested With Wildly Different Cultural Meanings, From The Erotic To The Spiritual, From The Revolutionary To The Artistic.

I'm A Big Fan Of The Vigor Of Civil Society, Political Engagement, And Public Life In Many Parts Of Latin America.

If You Look At A Lot Of Traditional Societies, They're All Organized Along What We Might Call Anarchist Guidelines, But It's Not Like The Zapatistas Were Reading European Social Theory.

Anarchists Believe That We Can Govern Ourselves In The Absence Of Coercive And Centralized Authority; The Underlying Premise About Human Nature (to Use An Infinitely Problematized But Necessary Term Here) Is Fundamentally Positive. And The Evidence That In Disasters People Are Really Pretty Kind, Generous, Brave, Resourceful And Creative Fed That.