The question in the title is about fear of the liberation theology being embraced by some of the younger generation, and the poll question is about ceding power to the younger generation.

I'm not very informed about the level of anarchy in the younger generation; and the article really didn't give me a feel for how widespread it is. I think any hope offered by anarchy is a delusion, a delusion that highly organized people will use to their advantage and against any anarchists.

Ceding power to a younger generation is inevitable; and, of course it is risky. The older generation has made certain preparations for old age; but, if the next generation does not respect these preparations, they can tear them down. The powers that be are working hard to convince the young that the old are stealing from them - not out of any concern for the young but out of a desire to seize even more power.

In Liberation Theology that's the freedom NEEDED to living a fully Christian life. In anarchism, it's freedom for freedom's sake (though some of us don't think that anarchism will produce freedom).

Just thinking about all of this passion for freedom I experience from Libertarians, Anarchists, Tea Partyers, and Constitutionalists and wondering how that thread makes it possible to morph one position into the other, especially with our responsibility for what happened to Iraq being a big motivator amongst those who, prior to that, had little inclination to want to fundamentally fight the system in any basic way.

on the nature of our existence or development of sensual perceptions? I maintain human behaviors are no different now than since recorded history use of resources and learned skills do not change human nature.

How wrong can I be? (don't hit me until I take off my glasses. OK?)

the species? If so, perhaps I should ask about the rate at which the march to the ice-flows might increase, due to the young's infatuation with anarchism.

the common anarchy of all youths. The young I see today are wonderful and it makes me happy to see them enjoy their young lives.

Then I'm not sure that I understand this. You suggest something occurred to my spiritual existence to change me from youthful anarchist. Can you define the process?

Finally, please direct me to this ice-flow thing so I may be more ready for the ethereal. Obviously I am not ready to die.

that they feel it is impossible to effect real change, so the whole thing should come down, so we can all start over from scratch, and anarchism is the shortest route to ending government: don't vote, don't commit, don't do anything that enables "the beast" and its primary handmaid, government. I suppose the process differs for each person, but according to this author, begins with that sense of futility.

Ice-flow was a joking reference to ancient forms of "elder care". You said something about how human behavior has not been changed that much by the 21st century (which I agree, though there may be significant small differences on the interpersonal level) and I was alluding to older forms of human behavior with that reference to "ice flow".

and read some of its texts

push from anarchism.

with liberation theology, as I understand liberation theology

in what they refer to as freedom and, since freedom, thus, takes such a high priority, they don't get much beyond their intuitive sense of the differences amongst themselves and, hence, have not really committed to one another beyond their shared freedom-high.

This author suggests a connection between the impulse to identify with the freedom posited by anarchism and Liberation Theology in a few places by describing elements of a social dynamic that amount to how those who are authentically free are also free, in a particularly important way, from themselves, which, though similar in its value for freedom, would also differentiate at least some anarchists from Liberation Theologists:

Regardless of culture or religious affiliation, similar prescriptions have been offered by humanity's saints and sages for realizing this feeling of centeredness in joy: serve your brothers and sisters in gratitude as best you can...surrendering attachments to outcomes, as well as personal grievances along the path. . .

This prescription transcends dogma as a pathway of "impersonal empowerment" - the willingness to labor amongst the "shadows of the valley," shining Light where we can, . . .

Friends, we balk at how intractable our social problems seem nary so much out of a sense of being impotent as "unique" personalities... rather, we balk at how powerful we may become as beings able to transcend personal concerns in faithfulness with our fellow beings.

less superior tone.

wow.

Anarchists in general make me uncomfortable.

FWIW, I had never heard this as a description of liberation theology.

I'm not sure what to think.

Everyone gets a buzzzzzzzzzz on over freedom, but the particular differences in their positions are avoided in the name of solidarity.

It is really difficult to get a read on what is happening within the various factions of OWS, imo. Your explanation helps me understand why that may so.

evil government amongst certain young professionals I know in health care, the worst, and most recent, incidentally, not involved in direct care fortunately.

against the anti-war movement and not just bigotry but very clear ignorance about the variety in peace people too. I had known her to be negative about government, which is very common around here, but I was very surprised at the presence of that sort of attitude in a human relations "professional" (not that everyone has to be perfect, just a little self-awareness isn't too much to expect in that field is it and since we aren't close friends I expected her to be more conscious of how she is perceived, especially in public.)

... makes me wonder if there isn't something to this stuff about diploma mills and how all of that is going to affect America's elders.

will do better than we did. I do not fear that part of our future at all.

don't appear to think that emergent properties of systems that are not properly controlled CAN, and most likely WILL, enslave us, thus further mitigating AGAINST the freedom that, as I understand it, motivates anarchism.

I imagine the answer to that question has something to do with progressive cycles, but each of the turnings would likely be accompanied not only by pain and suffering, but also LOSS, material and psychological, which losses mitigate against whatever anarchism ultimately results in. I suppose we could say that loss is inevitable, but if freedom is the purpose, loss that is not CHOSEN, loss that is imposed by others, no matter how well intentioned, still mitigates AGAINST fully realized freedom.

They are today's 'libertarians' and the end result of their proposals is likely the post-industrial global feudalism we can see developing around us.

The other branch of anarchism, the socialist branch, does not eschew collective organizations of governance, it simply insists that they be strictly democratic and in fact demands that such organizations be pervasive, governing all of society on democratic participatory principals.

about the value of freedom, it would admit that chaos does not yield only freedom; it also yields slavery and any freedom that depends upon slaves remaining slaves is not freedom at all. Yes, slaves DO eventually rise up, but what's lost to chaos each time is not nothing.

It seems real respect for freedom and authentic personal development would also recognize the necessity of ontologically appropriate, teleologically adaptive control. Perhaps that's my bias as a teacher.

*Sorry about those words. They're just so much shorter than saying controls that are appropriate to the being that each (or as many as possible) person is becoming & controls that continuously adapt in ongoing ways that increase the likelihood of certain outcomes, in this case freedom and full personal development for all.