To: koan who wrote (8934 ) 12/14/2010 12:36:33 PM From: Lane3 2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087 Well yes. Bingo. The Church was most authoritarian in maintaining its version of moral order and exercising it's own power. I understand and appreciate the relief that comes from getting out from under that oppression. Live like they want as long as they do not hurt other people. But if you get out from under one dominance scheme only to substitute another dominance scheme, I don't see how you can claim to have achieved freedom. Freedom is the absence of all dominance schemes, not just that one in particular. At such time as the only authority over us is to insure that we do not hurt other people, then we will have arrived. That is the libertarian objective. We are certainly not there now.Libertarina's and the right wingers throw around the word freedom all the time and have no friggen idea what they are talking. What you described above about living and not hurting anyone is the essence of libertarian thought. And you dismiss libertarians as not understanding freedom? From Wiki, first sentence: "Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action." every person has the right to manifest their own destiny. Hopefully we're cleared up the "libertarian" label. Now, on to "manifest" and "destiny." No one "manifests" his destiny. Makes no sense. Manifest means "display." How in the world do you display your destiny? Hang it on a flagpole?That is all the kids of the 60's were fighting for, manifest destiny, yet is was quite a brawl. The phrase, "manifest destiny," connotes imperialist expansion. A goal of kids in the 60's? Not hardly.