of goodwill and extremism

goodwill and extremism. lexicographically, there are antithetical to each other. and on prima facie as well it looks so too. but then is it really? in my opinion in a certain state goodwill borderlines extremism. that state is achieved when somebody has power and is defiant.

for e.g.:

let us assume that there are 10 people who are a hindrance to a community. the problem here is that the word hindrance is purely subjective. hence, a certain set of that community view it as a hindrance and others don't. violence is the easiest way to rid something off and we are animals at core, so the group uses violence and rids the community of the bad blood.

what ensues is that, the group now has equivocally gained the trust of the community and to ensure the situation doesn't repeat itself, it starts policing and has its own laws and of course gets drunk with power. and since it has the power, it now tramples over the constitutional rights of an individual and enforces its then goodwill and now tyranny/extremism.

this goes on until another set finds it unbearable and then upsets the prevalent group and the whole cycle begins again.

what this effectively translates is that, the government should have an effective strategy for mob control. mob = junta, public at large.

people have tolerance factors. when everyone gets upset, it translates as a revolution and history says no governing body survived a revolution and hence in this case, there will a restoration of order. however, it only lasts for a short time, until the tolerance is not pushed and the whole cycle starts over again and again and again.

cheers


p.s.: i realise the flow breaks off somewhere.