Freedom is more then a lak of government.

[stefan]

I was browsing throug the forum when I read this in some ones signature: "Mankind is born free. If Mankind is born free, Slavery is murder. As slavery is murder, so property is theft. If property is theft, government is tyranny. If government is tyranny, anarchy is Liberty."

I think this is tru if you follow the logic. But I think this is not tru if you take reality. Liberty is not the absence of government. If there would not be any governments in the entire world we would not be free.

The world is an Empire where the sovern powers aren't the big players any more. Its about the big multinationals. They dominate the world they oppress us.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

I guess it depends how you define "government". Do you restrict the definition to governments of states, or does it include all kinds of decision making structures that the people might use to "govern" themselves (including decentralised direct democracy or consensus that one would expect to find in an anarchist society)? In the former case absence of government is liberty. But in the latter case this is not so, as freedom spins from the social relationships one has, and if there is no agreed-upon way to reach decisions on issues that affect whole communities, there can be no freedom.

[Ligeia]

Well,..that is far more difficult.Anarchy never existed in a whole country,so you cant say that you arent free but it is true that there are things that affect communities and so you are not totally free in your decisions but maybe they set individuality equal to liberty since individuality would go through an evolution in anarchy or communism,I think.
Now you just gain material things and the rest you could gain is not important.
Private property harms ,corrupts individualism through confusing someone with what he/she posses.It has led Individualism entirely away,and the same happened logically with freedom.So it happens that the majority (conscious or not)
thinks that the important thing is to have,and forget that the important thing is to be.The true perfection,true liberty of the individual lies, not in what he/she has, but in what he/she is and this consciousness will be achieved through those new systems.
Maybe Im just writing nonsense but its a try.... ;)

[choekiewoekie]

Revolution of the mind is right i believe, but it is just an addition to what stefan says. I think the two things go together perfectly well.
To be free you need to free yourself (or better, we need to free all mankind) from the Empire, but we do need decision making structures.

True perfection or true liberty lies in what the individual is... that's a hard one. Who are we? Most people don't get to know themselves in their whole life. But i guess thats not your point so i think i understand what you're trying to say.
Trying to be the person who you're really are is the best thing to do, in that there is more freedom than to achieve a lot of great stuff. Am i correct or do i misunderstand?

[socialistfuture]

yeah you get a contridictory message coming from 'leftist' stands on government. on the one hand government is tyranny and is the rule of the minority over the majority ( b over the proles) yet the classic leftist stand is to have state assets.

so you are against privatization yet that would mean there is a goverment and state to 'own' the assets in the name of the country and people. but that is a more socialist than anarchist princible i guess.

i think no matter what there will be ruling structures.. wipe away the state and something will replace it. even the ELZN has a command structure and community structures the difference between that and the mexican state and military would hopefully be that the Zapatistas have a more direct democracy.

it is not the notion of the state that oppresses people it if the way in which it is run and layed out. the roles that people play in their lives. freedom of speech and thought can be absent from any society. an anarchist who says that a nazi cannot have freedom of speech because he is 'wrong' is denying freedom of speech to someone in the same way that a new revolutionairy goverment who has come to powr through arms and proceeds to jail 'undesireables' and 'counter revolutionaires' without a trial can be just as undemocratic as a fascist state.

so it is not wether the goverment exists or not it is the nature of the society that exists. if we forever say smash the state 'governments are failures' what will happen if we did and then there were people left that didnt believe in the new society? freedom must be now and here and then and there.

Karl Marx once said:
'an end that requires an unjust means is not an end'

so we all play our part in the way we live and interact with others. it is not enough to blame the state and corporations and the military.. for the past has taught us that revolutions can end out far from where they intended to go.

Albert Camus is a philosopher worth studying, he came to the conclusion revolution without an end can lead to unlimited tyranny and end out increasing the power of the state. the question still remains as to wether a decentralized democratic form of socialism/anarchism is incresingly becoming more desireable and acceptable.

[Ligeia]

You did not misunderstand me.Dont worry. :)
If the government exists or not is not that important?Arent the two aspects important?
Of course,the nature of the society is more important because one is born in a society and then you learn all the things your society is,so there must be build a "good" society,so that we learn not to block freedom in any way but nevertheless knowing what is "not good" for everyone.
But,we could be more free if we change our consciousness into the one that material things are not as important as unmaterial things for the individual not forgetting there needs for existing,which also consider care in form of feelings.

[monkeydust]

"Mankind is born free. If Mankind is born free, Slavery is murder. As slavery is murder, so property is theft. If property is theft, government is tyranny. If government is tyranny, anarchy is Liberty."

......I think this is tru if you follow the logic




Nah......

It sounds nice, but the "links" between the ideas just don't cut the mustard.

E.g. - "As slavery is murder, property is theft" - Why?


- "If government is tyranny, anarchy is liberty" - He's assuming that just because government is tyranny and anarchy is not "government" as such, that anarchy is liberty. This doesn't follow.

etc.

[socialistfuture]

i guess in one way the links arent there but if u look at something like the invasion of another country it all clicks into place.
the government authorisers it, the military does it, and the public fund it.
its not democratic - no one voted on the war.
so thats an example of the state denying liberty to a foreign people.. and what if that foering people is not foreign and is a minority within the same country. or even citizens who are protesting a goverment action and riot police are pulled on them and some die?
the state's armed aspect if the police and the military who seek to enforce the rule of law - the law which benefits those who 'own' private property. the same property which many times in simply taken by force from people.
liberty should be the right of people no matter who they are and what their situation and status.. liberty means food and land to live on and feed from. goverment can deny that right.