Nah, it's not.
Here's a more complete explanation:
It's striking to me how common it is that when you talk about not imposing rules on other people or not forcing each other to live a certain way, some people will seamlessly think you're talking about isolation or solitude or not having a network or connectivity with everyone.
They're telling on themselves. What they're saying is "I can't interact with people without the aspect of wanting to control people".
So when you say no control, they think you mean no people. They can't imagine how there could still be involvement and interaction if there isn't a mechanism to control.
Very sad, tsk tsk
But the great Ron Paul explains it pretty nicely.
It isn't one of his best or most iconic debate answers, but the headshake itself is really epic. And the whole nonsense and screwy thinking from McCain is fascinating.
It's easy to see why people make this error. Our networks and governance and (for most people, tragically) our parenting is based on control rather than mutuality.
(But don't worry, it's starting to change.)
So there's so much control, and that's what people have an example of. So I absolutely forgive the mistake.
But then you owe it to yourself to realize "wait, nope, not ordering people what to do isn't the same as not being involved.. different concepts". And then you can weigh and consider what was actually said.