I understand you although not perfectly but you need to see it from my point of view which is within the Asian social mileau whereby the authoritative figure is the 'father figure' and that runs through the society with of course the head of the family, the father having a tight control over the kids - what better way of control or monopolization than this? The family is the unit that makes up all society. It is 'real' for us here perhaps not for you. Anyway, this probably does not interest you since your culture is different......in China, do you know that the government is called the 'parents'. I wish you had a name since 'unleesh' is not a name and you know my name. And with your experience with various political groups, I'll like to know what is your opinion of communism? Is it the path to freedom vis-a-vis capitalism? Does communism empowers the individual and frees him/her from the mock 'slavery' of capitalism? Because I feel that communism is worse off than capitalism or corporatism since it is state control. In corporations, if they get too powerful like MS, the law can handle them. The state is sometimes so intertwined with the legislate that the individual will have no recourse. >From your past messages, you seem to adhere to 'anarchism', which I use to like (it's quite close to the Chinese' Taoism vis-a-vis Confucianism) although it is not a properly developed theory of government, that is, it can assist in efforts to change systems (so can communism) but might settle to be something that cannot guarantee freedom. What do you think? I like to her your opinion but pls note that (if you do not know it which I think you do....) most emails are read by other than you and me. Regards, > ---------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 10:11 AM > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT > Subject: RE: REPLY: One WTO account > > "The 'father figure' is symbolic of the 'oppresive' figure you're claiming > freedom from..." > > I'm not claiming freedom from any "oppressive figure", so a "father > figure" > couldn't even be symbolic. > > The State is not a "father figure" nor an "oppressive figure". It's a set > of > relations formalized into a monopoly of legitimized force. > > Those who are attacking forces which constrict life are not engaged in > some > Oedipal struggle. It is real. > > (un)leash >
