I'm going to start combing some of the arguments as I feel like the points are beginning to reach a general point.
1) The issues of the Spanish CNT-FAI stemmed from FAI hardliner control over it which invariably led to tensions and actions committed in the name of a wider organisation. I'm not presenting an Anarchist argument, I myself am a DeLeonist Syndicalist, however the ideal should not be that of simply "Order and Stability" that as a concept requires the strict policy that is the downfall of many Socialist and Communist states. It removes the criticisms of Government that whilst seeming problematic in democracies, are actually a strength and lend to greater stability. Dictatorships fall apart all the time, democracies that failed are thoroughly studied because of the nature of democracies being stable. Democracy in a Socialist or Syndicalist States is key to ensuring survival and for that there has to be acknowledgement that the working class is smart enough to rule directly through a Democratic process. The worry of counter-revolutionaries is reduced because there is no necessity for murder or death the government should be able to push through reforms following ascendancy, through whatever means of course, but it should always revert to democracy to ensure that the Revolutionaries do not begin to fall towards nepotism and greed that results in the states to downfall. The destruction of private property is not a literal destruction but a redistribution towards those that need it, opposition from them is not a concern as you can take it and not need to worry because you will ultimately win over far more people by the land redistribution. The prevention of a so called White Terror comes from reforming the military and enforcing party discipline with Commissars, a Syndicalist state can exist even with more centrist elements providing the foundations and baseline are there, that is the goal, to achieve liberation of workers and people from capitalism, not to imprison them in an alternative.
2) The concept cannot be justified simply by a majoritarian rule, slavery by that account could. If 25% of the population are a minority, or even 49%, the majority could enforce slavery and it be justified because the majority would be richer. That is why the concepts of both the ends justify the means, and the means justify the ends are ludicrous because ultimately, you always need to consider the means and the end together, not simply believe that one will justify the other.
3) A country at war should be united against a foreign enemy, if it is a civil conflict, the government should win with a majority and lose without, regardless, mass persecution of "suspected" enemies is unjustifiable as if you have a majority, you will win through numbers and so murder is unjustified because well, its murder and because it creates more enemies potentially losing the majority support and so it is counter intuitive. Without a majority, the murder of citizens believed to be enemies politically diverts resources necessary else [Counter Intuitive], makes more enemies [Counter Intuitive], causes damage to necessary infrastructure [Counter Productive] and is inhumane [Moral].
4) A dependency on the market stems not from an issue but from a natural policy, humans have and must cooperate and through peaceful cooperation, better ideas can spread, if your ideal is truly that of beneficial Socialism, then the spread of ideas is beneficial through trade. Furthermore, unless you are creating a magical new state you must accept resources can not be found every and so cooperation is necessary. That is why Protectionism does not work as it damages the economy and hurts workers it is meant to protect and the ideals of the revolution can be spread peacefully which is undeniably better.
5) Again however, what counts as hedonism? Examples, not the conceptual understanding of it.
6) Rehabilitation covers education and economic reform is a solution, however banning drugs has been proven to markedly increase their use whilst liberalising laws reduces it and allows the government to better find people who need rehab and help them.
7) People will not as a majority support in the modern world, a concept of Authoritarianism due to the oppressive regimes and the suppression of dissent. You are correct that the most successful societies clash with each other, internally and externally, but it is not a warfare based clashed, it is a political one, and the political discourse creates and develops ideas so that they fit into the world and the nation better! That is why democracy and acceptance of supposed counter-revolutionary elements is positive, because it means the government remains focused on the betterment of the people as they promised rather than being lulled through the peace of a thousand bayonets.
10) Secularism in no way tackles this, secularism is the separation of church and state, not the combatting of religious extremism and so secularism is not a word to be used in this context. Secularism is agreeable as is the challenging of radical ideas that promote violence, but not through violence as that legitimises fears and leads to more, debate is a far more effective tool as is why a democratic system should be the ideal. Not Authoritarian.
