|
I'm sorry but this follows the same self-justifying logic train that feminists try to use when they argue a female leader would lead to more peaceful and stable platforms although there's no evidence of it.
The whole Love movement survives only long enough for the movement to gain traction. At that point the policies of helping each other becomes beyond simply charity and is enforced policies. Therefore the natural evolution of the movement would kill it's original intent.
For example, everyone "should" spend time helping those who are impoverished spreading their knowledge/time/skills to others. However once this "Woodstock Politics" becomes dogma how do you propose dealing with those who do not wish to partake? If you ignore them the movement would quickly devolve as none of us (or very very few) want to spend each weekend cooking for the homeless, and the inherant jealousy of those not there would slow everyone else's desire as well. If you start to punish those not partaking, you become worse than the original system.
Oh, and I haven't seen any intervention as far as drugs are concerned in any Concert I've been to in the last 10 years... so not sure how it equates in this situation.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
|