No, not exactly. The reverse is actually true.

Try thinking about personal and interpersonal interactions, then fitting that into the scope of group actions and interactions and continue working your way up.

As with the fast food example, often times you even admit you do not really understand how the things discussed work.

Your admitted lack of understanding , and inability to articulate a model of how your proposals would actually play out in the real world proves that you are the one operating entirely from dogma - not I.

The difference between us, seems to be not so much a question of ideology as odd as that might sound at first. Rather, I see and pay attention to the side effects and compounded consequences - something you never seem to give any mind or care about.

You get very vague, snarky, and dodge any questions that would actually put into question the consistency of your stated principles. I think you like the "idea" of the world you think should be created, and the idea alone is good enough for you. Whenever any negative side effects are brought up regarding an implementation of an idea you favor, you simply dissemble or ignore, or simply refocus on the original problem without addressing the side effects.

Forcing societal change at the barrel of a gun, without actually understanding how the details would work is foolhardy and dangerous. Eastern Europe showed us this much. I dont think the Bolsheviks revolted because they actually wanted to live in a decrepit, Govt controlled police state. But thats what they got, because they did not comprehend all the ramifications of what it was they were asking for. The "idea" they were sold was good enough, and as long as anything could be explained in terms of forwarding that "idea" it was accepted.

Thinking through the entirety of an issue, and understanding the complexity is necessary if positive changes are to be made through violence. The devil is in the details. Ignore the details, and you are doomed to failure. In the realm of politics, this also dooms the rest of us along with you.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)