>>So much for the community if it didn't develop a mechanism to deal with such individuals. So instead of building the community's resistance against that, you'd prefer to have the state intervene, or at least know everything about it. Actually everything about everyone, in case someone turns out to be an egocentric individual.
>
>So whats the communities resistance to organised crime and terrorism supposed to look like.

Something like the swiss model of it. We did have it here, and it worked really well - I even remember two terrorist acts which were prevented by citizens (attempted assassination of the turkish ambassador, the citizens caught the assassin; attempted hijacking of an airplane, the passengers self-organized and stopped the guys before they could do any damage). Of course it takes a lot of money out of the hands of paramilitary businesses (aka security mercenaries), doesn't put too much power in the hands of the government etc... and it leaves the citizens too independent, which can't be allowed nowadays, can it?

>>I just love the way these questions get framed... so whatever one answers is somehow wrong, but the frame itself is beyond questioning. My answer to the choice between totalitarian state and criminals/terrorists is a no, thanks.
>
>How do you get that. Its a yes or no. The individuals right over the group or not.

I did say no.