[Gnosis]

The United States of America is not a 'free country'.
I think that the term 'free country' is a contradiction, as the word 'country' implies borders, regulation, control, and other such limitation, and freedom is not-regulation by definition.

If the US can be called a 'free country' it is because the people who call it that have no idea what at least one of those words really means. If it can be called that, it is because the people who call it that hold in their minds a twisted and backwards concept of the meaning of 'freedom'. They use the term to gain political power, to subdue the masses into an intellectual lifestyle shrouded by illusion, to appear passive and therefore trustworthy, when all the while, just behind the veil, a vampire exists, sucking the life-blood of all who are powerless to resist.

Democracy is not freedom, democracy is the oppression of the minority by the majority. Oppression is not freedom. If ever there is even one single individual being oppressed, there is no freedom, there is oppression.

If this system of governmnet under which I live my life was a voluntary system, I would not be a part of it.
I do not want to pay for a war to which I am so morally opposed.
I do not want to pay taxes for programs that I will never benefit from.
I do not want to give money toward 'social security' when I am fully capable of saving for myself and I do not trust the people who take it upon theirselves to be responsable for me when the only rightful place for the responsability is in my own hands.
I do not want to pay for manditory car insurence for 'someday if...' when I need that money now for food and shelter.

If it were voluntary, I would not have such a problem with it, because then I could just say 'no thanks, I'll take my chances in the name of eating today' but it isn't, and that is where I am conflicted.

If financing the whims of people I don't know for reasons I don't agree with wasn't manditory, if it was voluntary, then I might not have such a problem with it, because I could just say 'No thanks, I think I'll buy food instead, I think I'll go on vacation instead. No, I don't think you should kill those people, I don't care about what they did to your friends, I don't have anything against them, I think I'll save my money instead. No thanks, I can save my own money for my future, you don't need to worry about me, I am a good saver, thank you for your offer and concern any way, it is nice to know that you care about something other than your own selfish desires."
If I do say that, and I do act that way, I will be imprisoned.

That is what I have a problem with. Those people are delusional, and they want to hurt me and my life. I feel threatened and I don't want to take it from them. I don't have to take it from them, but they make me feel so small.
That is their way, they make me feel small, they make themselves look big. They tell me that it is better to have big friends when you are small because if I don't I will be kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered.
They tell me that they will be my friend, if I give them my lunch money, and then no one will be allowed to beat on me but them. Surely, that's a good deal?

And what do they do? They turn me into a prostitute. I am expected to sell my life, my time, my energy, to whatever business will pay me, and I am supposed to work, not only to supply myself with the necessary tools for survival, but to also give them a piece of MY earnings, so that they can avoid getting a real job and earning it themselves.

Why don't politicians have real jobs on the side to pay for their wars and their programs? Why do they expect us all to pay for it for them? If it means so much to them, why are they not willing to make the money themselves? Why must they take it from me and my work every week?

This system usurps the power of the individual, incapacitating it, forcing it to depend on the system for a crutch, the very system that provides its handicap.
It breaks my legs whenever they heal, and then when they are broken, it offers me a piggy-back ride until they heal again, and then I am again subjected to the beating.

And the LIES! Oh, the lies are the worst part. I can handle a beating, thats not so bad, but when they tell me they love me, and they tell me they care about my safety, and they tell me that I am worth something, that I am beautiful and that they are PROTECTING me! They tell me that I am free, and that this is what freedom is! THIS IS NOT FREEDOM! THIS IS SLAVERY! AND I KNOW IT! AND THEY CAN'T STOP ME FROM KNOWING IT!

They can't lie to me, I know the truth, and I am not afraid.

[Crazyvichistan]

Very poetic. Do you just come up with these things?

[Truthseeker]

If ever there is even one single individual being oppressed, there is no freedom, there is oppression.

By that logic, wouldn't there be no opression is one individual was free?

I am expected to sell my life, my time, my energy, to whatever business will pay me, and I am supposed to work,

The only alternative to (since you seem to support private property) is to sit and do nothing while the government pays with the blood you so decry it having sucked from other.

Why don't politicians have real jobs on the side to pay for their wars and their programs? Why do they expect us all to pay for it for them? If it means so much to them, why are they not willing to make the money themselves?

Originally the founding fathers tried to make a system in which representatives are unpaid. (Jobs also limit time available to act as representatives)

The problem with that view is that is largely excludes the poor from office. That is oligarchy.

Here's MY problems with that:

I do not like being exploited in low jobs because some aristocrat has a piece of paper entitling them to the proceeds of the means of production.

I do not want to be forced to fight and die in wars arranged by those who have never worked in their lives and which I did not even indirectly chose

I do not want to pay taxes for programs that I will never benefit from.

I do not wish the streets to be littered with the starving and impoverished, resorting to any means to live yet one more day.

I do not wish should fortune turn its back to look up, homeless through no fault of my own, to watch the winners of lotteries strut around with vast wealth merely by another stroke of that same luck

I do not trust these same rich people to provide for others by charity, for they can hide from the horrors of famine, of war, of disease in they're estates while people die all around.

I want to be safe, and I will sacrifice my right to kill if others will do the same, that is not a freedom I want exercised and it is wrong.

I need protection from foreign militaries, and if an elected civilian government can control a force to do that I say it is needed.

If we destroy the governments which we, the public indirectly control we will be conquered by those cleptocratic ones that rule for themselves, THAT is slavery, THAT is vampyric, and if you can't handle that move to North Korea or something.

[Gnosis]

By that logic, wouldn't there be no opression is one individual was free?

It is possible to look at it that way.
If there is oppression, then there is no freedom.
If there is freedom, then there is no oppression.
It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, and that was my origional point.
How can one person be free while all others are oppressed? What role do they have, or are they not a part of the society in question?

The only alternative to (since you seem to support private property) is to sit and do nothing while the government pays with the blood you so decry it having sucked from other.

Property, private or otherwise, is an illusion. I do not support illusion. That is why I have such a problem with working. The value of money is an illusion, and I don't belive in it. I don't own anything, I don't want to work in order to own anything because I don't want to own anything.

My biggest problem with this system is that it perpetuates and encourages belief in illusion.

Originally the founding fathers tried to make a system in which representatives are unpaid. (Jobs also limit time available to act as representatives)

Right, but the jobs they have require money in order to have any power. They have to get that money from somewhere, because they insist on doing things that require that they get money from somewhere in order to do.
I don't want them to do those things, and I certainly do not want to work so that they can take what I earn and use it for those things that I don't want them to do.
I say they should have to earn the money on their own if they want to spend money. Maybe that will encourage them to do things that don't require money. Maybe that will encourage them to do things and encourage things that aren't so bad for everyone.

I do not like being exploited in low jobs because some aristocrat has a piece of paper entitling them to the proceeds of the means of production.

I do not want to be forced to fight and die in wars arranged by those who have never worked in their lives and which I did not even indirectly chose

I agree because I feel the same way.
I will take it a step further and say that if I work, I want all that comes from it, I want all that I work towards to be mine and mine alone to do with as I please.
I will say that I want to represent myself directly, and I do not want any one else to represent me, as I feel that only I can represent me, no one else can.

I need protection from foreign militaries, and if an elected civilian government can control a force to do that I say it is needed.

I need a unanimous disarming and disbanding of all the worlds military and police forces.
I need the unanimous and total destruction of all weapons such as WMDs, guns, and other such instruments whose only purpose is to cause pain and kill.
I need the total deconstruction of all the worlds governments, military, and religious institutions.
I need the total deconstruction of all the world's institutions of illusion, including all capatalist and corporate, as well as any other delusion-encouraging instituions.

I do not need government to protect me, I need a world in which I am not threatened by anything that I am not capable of protecting myself from. I will not settle for less.

If we destroy the governments which we, the public indirectly control we will be conquered by those cleptocratic ones that rule for themselves, THAT is slavery, THAT is vampyric, and if you can't handle that move to North Korea or something.

You don't know the future, nothing is certain.
All you are accomplishing in saying this sort of thing is the justification of your own delusions and captivity.

[Truthseeker]

How can one person be free while all others are oppressed?

They are oppressed because they are subject to one persons whims, and that person is free becasue they can do that.

I don't own anything, I don't want to work in order to own anything because I don't want to own anything.

I will take it a step further and say that if I work, I want all that comes from it, I want all that I work towards to be mine and mine alone to do with as I please.

How is that not a contradiction?

I need a unanimous disarming and disbanding of all the worlds military and police forces.

Those who seek only to oppress will refuse, and if others go on without them they will be conquered.

and other such instruments whose only purpose is to cause pain and kill.

Having a weapon is only important relative to the weapons of others, if no one have any you can just use a mace or other blunt object, the most primitive weapon exclusively to kill people. You cannot restrict such things.

I do not need government to protect me, I need a world in which I am not threatened by anything that I am not capable of protecting myself from.

Then what are you complaining about? Obviously to achieve that you have to eliminate the threats and then remove the state that protects you not the other way around.

You don't know the future, nothing is certain.

How can you rail against your oppression while denying the existence of those who desire to oppress?

[Gnosis]

They are oppressed because they are subject to one persons whims, and that person is free becasue they can do that.

I think the role of oppressor is just as restrictive as the role of the oppressed. I do not believe that the oppressor is free.

Just look at the President of the US, for example. He is the most 'powerful' man in the world, but he can't leave the white house without body guards and police cars or else someone will attack him. He can't do anything without being watched, he is not free.

How is that not a contradiction?

There is a differeece between ownership and use of that which I work for.
Lets say I want to eat.
I don't really own the food, as ownership is an illusion, but that does not mean I cannot obtain food and eat it.
It is not mine specifically, but that does not mean it is not free to be eaten, or that I am not free to it eat it.

If I decide to work a farm, I want the same food that I have labored to grow to go directly towards feeding me and any people I decide to share it with, if I decide to share it.
I do not want to be forced to give it to people who didn't work for it, and I do not want to take it from others who worked for it while I didn't.
I don't want to work for food, be forced to give it away, and then get food in return that I didn't work for.
I want the product of my efforts for me, though I don't own them and I won't pretend to.

Those who seek only to oppress will refuse, and if others go on without them they will be conquered.

I know this, and that is why it would have to be unianimous. I didn't say that everyone would go along with it, but I did describe the way it would have to be in order for me to be satisfied.

Having a weapon is only important relative to the weapons of others, if no one have any you can just use a mace or other blunt object, the most primitive weapon exclusively to kill people. You cannot restrict such things.

No, I cannot control others, and I will not try to. I didn't say that everyone would denounce violence, but that is what needs to happen if I am to be satisfied.

Then what are you complaining about? Obviously to achieve that you have to eliminate the threats and then remove the state that protects you not the other way around.

The state is the threat. Remove the state and remove the threat.
I define the state not in national terms, but global. I see every seperate state or government as one organisation, one state.
The governmnet is more than just the senetes and houses and presidents.
It is the religion, the propaganda, the delusion, the military, the corporation, any instrument or organisation whose purpose it is to manipulate and control the minds, emotions and behaviours of the masses.
Any organisation whose purpose it is to usurp the individual's self-responsability and deny the existence of the individual's self-control.
Any organisation who takes it upon themselves to mandate the difference between wrong and right, punish those who act in a different way than it would prefer, and marginalise all those who disagree with its principles while it makes 'heros' out of those who submit and obey.
Any organisation who would serve to supplant the individual decision-making process with their own pre-packaged decisions, values, and customs.
Any organisation who takes it upon itself to attempt to direct the flow of the evolution of the individual and so the species.
That organisation that would force upon both individual and collective certain universal ideals which demand the restriction of the 'bad' qualities and the limitation and denial of the ability of the individual to be, act, think, and feel without an external master or guide, as it deems necessary or correct concerning its own life and personal preferences.

How can you rail against your oppression while denying the existence of those who desire to oppress?

I do not deny the reality of the desire of some to oppress others, I don't deny their ability to oppress, either, certainly they both exist.
However, I do deny that you know for fact that if we destroy the governments as we know them then we would inevitably be conqured by some other governments which are either equal to the last or somehow worse.
You just don't know that.

[Truthseeker]

If I decide to work a farm, I want the same food that I have labored to grow to go directly towards feeding me and any people I decide to share it with, if I decide to share it.
I do not want to be forced to give it to people who didn't work for it, and I do not want to take it from others who worked for it while I didn't.
I don't want to work for food, be forced to give it away, and then get food in return that I didn't work for.

That's what ownership is!

Just look at the President of the US, for example

Who is not personal ruler of a totalitarian state

I define the state not in national terms, but global. I see every seperate state or government as one organisation, one state.

Do you deny that if one state were removed, another would try to take it's place?

However, I do deny that you know for fact that if we destroy the governments as we know them then we would inevitably be conqured by some other governments which are either equal to the last or somehow worse.

Removal government and every means of defense tends to lead historically to conquest by a foreign power or the rise of warlords. I think you'll agree that an at least nominally representative government that takes your taxes is better than a foreign one that doesn't even make an effort in that regard by takes your money anyway or a Warlord who uses violence to take as much of what you have as possible.

[Gnosis]

That's what ownership is!

I demanded a privilage that I am not entitled to.

Ownership is a belief system.
One cannot have privilage or authority like ownership, it is impossible, they are both illusion.
I will not act as though or demand that I have any sort of privilage, because I know that I can't.
I know that even if I and all other people believe and act as if I am privilaged, the privilage is an illusion.

I didn't say that the fruits of my labour would go directly to my benefit alone, I said that I would want them to.
I didn't say that I would be privilaged, because I know that I cannot be, but I did say that I would want to be privilaged.

Obviously, on further analysis (which is what this conversation is meant for) my belief system isn't quite perfectly thought-out and organised. I have contradicted myself.

On one hand, I know quite well that privilage and authority are illusions which need to be seen for what they are and not encouraged or perpetuated but instead irradicated.
On the other hand, I would, almost instinctivly, desire privilage of ownership of that which I have worked to produce.
I would use the fact that I worked toward the growing of the crop to justify a position of privilage and authority and call myself the one to decide how the crops are used.
I would justify the belief in the illusion by saying that I am privilaged because I worked for it.

How to resolve the conflict?

I will give it some thought...

Who is not personal ruler of a totalitarian state

It doesn't matter what kind of ruler he is or what kind of system he runs. The fact is, he is a ruler, or at least one ruler of many, and there is a system in place.
One is no more free than anyone else.

Do you deny that if one state were removed, another would try to take it's place?

I cannot deny that some one MIGHT try.
At the same time I cannot deny that they might not.
It is a matter of probability. There is a certain probability that they mightand another that they might not. I do feel I am in a position to interpret the likelihood of the occurence of either event.