Unless you are taking over the entire world (through peace somehow), countries are what we have. Honestly doesn't really matter the name. Call it what you like but the concept is going to exist.
How are you going to keep other groups from just conquering you?
If I'm not understanding, can you explain what level I'm supposed to be thinking at? Is this some sort of anarchy thing where everyone exists as their own tiny little sovereign homestead?
My personal guess is that while the stated goal of 'do whatever as long as it doesn't affect others' is good, our human biology will fail us in achieving this goal.
I already feel that humans aren't built for the world we made, that we can't handle societies as big and diffused as our current global culture. It breaks our capacity for cooperation and empathy by deliberately abusing the limits we have on caring for too many people or people far away.
Likewise, I think the end state of social progressiveness is going to butt up hard against core biological limits that will constantly try to push some of us towards bigotry due to outdated instincts that worked great when we were small tribes of monkeys, but are extremely destructive and unhelpful to modern human society.
I played the first one as kind of a fluke. It's absolutely not my typical interest. I usually hate games with punishing resource limits, but some quirk of fate lined things up where I was in the right kind of mood for that one. Absolutely loved it.
Haven't (and never plan to) played the sequel. Just don't think I'll ever be able to top how magical the first one was for me and I was pretty happy with the original ending.
It was unfortunate to learn that work did not have the concept of semesters and you couldn't just write off an assignment from your boss as 'well I'll get a zero from that one, but there's always next semester'. They just keep bugging you about it over and over even though clearly I've moved on already.
Semesters were a much easier 'reset' than getting fired was.
Our neighbors are literally the fashies right now. They're dismantling our government as we speak. We're literally being conquered.
You said violence isn't 'secure' but then said you need violence to protect yourself from tankies and fascists, unless they're already in your country I guess?
I'm just not following. And I'm not sure how your last statements relate to the idea of 'nothing won by violence is secure'? How is the embarrassment that is the Democrats related to fighting back against tyranny with violence if necessary? If anything Democrats are the argument that peaceful methods are failing, not an argument that violence will gain us nothing.