Well therein lies the problem, doesn't it? The notion that I have to stop someone just to live in peace. I mean, if people have visions for the world and think they're grand and all, that's perfectly fine. The problem starts when you try to impose (or steer, if you will) that vision on others, who may not be interested at all. Unless it's perennially opt-in, there will be conflict, and as history proves sometimes those get real ugly.
You are a consumer, a borrower, a voter, a worker, et cetera. You have lots of power.
Regardless of your feelings of not being at peace, civilization is absolutely a compromise. A world that avoids the compromises of civilization is not one that will be static and unchanging either.
Society expects less of you than ever before.
And are you not allowed to leave, as Christopher McCandless did (and other trancendentalists before him, more successfully). Plenty of mountain people operate under the assumption that they are entitled to be left alone, and they consider the US flag to be a flag of pirates. We should have room for those enclaves if their municipalities allow for them, I guess.
How about the idea that everyone should be allowed to live in peace and pursue their interests without harming anything? Would it be wrong to "impose" that vision upon everyone?
How is imposing universal laws, like "Don't murder", any different? Why don't we allow people to "opt-out" of things like, say, paying taxes?
You see, one way or the other, you are already living under a "vision" of the world imposed by other people, decided for you before you even existed.
