Modern gangs also sometimes organize via voluntary cooperation. Their ability to commit violence and control their territory is merely the foundation of their legitimacy in any non violent agreement. Same foundation as all "official" governments.
The Continental Congress did not lead a democracy, any more than the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States does.
Yeah I guess they're all just paid shills, and have no idea of what they're talking about.
Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.
Basically it came down to an attempt at FUD: "Everyone is biased, you can't really trust anyone, therefore I don't need to acknowledge of any of the substantive points you are making."
Misdirection, in other words.
What works in the place of violence? Escape? Maybe you can have a diaspora society willing to run away and rebuild in any territory it can ever reach and live in. Nullifying defense? Say you have some kind of structure or device that makes you invincible without fighting back and all violence against you is a pointless waste of energy. Then you could just be, and voluntarily agree to some social contract you never use violence to uphold. Love? Maybe all violence could hypothetically be stopped if the violent person's emotions could be negotiated with to circumvent their desires and everyone ends up happy. These all seem totally utopian to depend on 100% purely at a societal level, but these are all nonviolent approaches I know people take to resist violence on a practical 1 to 1 level.
That is a very good question and I do not have a good answer. Maybe subjectively... that legitimate power is perceived as justified. I grew up in a communist regime and had the opportunity to experience the difference between obeying rules because you are afraid not to vs obeying rules because they are at least somewhat correlated to what the majority considers to be good. Sure, even in democracy you obey some rules just because you are afraid not to, but you also understand that you live in an imperfect world that is not centered around you and you can accept some level of power you don't perceive as justified as long as it is about something like zoning rules and not your fundamental freedoms.
But it seems highly subjective... maybe if I grew up in ancient Egypt I would believe that the pharaoh has the right do whatever he pleases and who am I to judge whether it is evil or not.
Everyone is a slave to their incentives. You have to weed through multiple narratives of different perspectives if you want a chance of piecing together "the truth", whatever that actually means.
I think "the truth" means what brings us simultaneously to the greatest understanding, peace, respect for existence and consciousness, freedom from misery, and victory over cruelty. Anything that, over the long run, takes these away in greater amounts than it gives them back is a falsehood. If truth is not this thing, then why ought we seek it in the first place? I think that's how we can all be less of a slave to our incentives (except the incentive for the truth), even if they are to spread FUD and assert our own objective correctness :>
Trying to get rid other cultures herritage is quite a common activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage
History classes in primary and secondary school are often extremely light on any criticism of the own nations past if mentioned at all. In my own case in Switzerland, some things we were taught were outright lies, fabricated by a historian from Zürich almost a century earlier to promote patriotism. The European colonial period is another thing that got completely misrepresented for example.