Sounds like the Socialist-Democracy of the American bi-partisan alliance. People like Anon always argue against the GOP's legislating morality on the people of America, but, all the while, he supports the same damnable philosophy on his own side. Whether we're forced to accept "Radical Religious Right", or the Radical Atheistic Left (and I don't mean that all Leftists are Atheists, or all Atheists are Leftists), we're still forced. Our two-party systems are fighting for the same end result; the only differences are the means to get America there. I am no fan of Bush, but as I said in the 2004 election: Regardless who wins, Bush or Kerry, I'm going to lose my liberty either way; but, at least with Bush, I'd do it as an American.

Heil Bush!

Very well said, by a man who understood sovereignty and the difference between monarchy and individuality. In a monarchy, the king is the total sovereign, and all pay homage to him. In our Constitutional Republic (unlike any other Republic), "We The People" are each of us a monarch of our own stewardship, and are individually sovereign. In turn, we delegate (not abdicate) our sovereign right of representation to another in order to act in our stead. This representative cannot, under any circumstances, assume a non-delegated right that has not been justly given; to do such would be usurpation and would lead to the entire destruction of our form of government. Accordingly, when the King is the absolute sovereign, he cannot, under any circumstances, make a mistake and be something less than what he is-- this would lead to the entire destruction of their government. The King is either the absolute sovereign, or he is not; if he makes any mistakes, he obviously isn't the absolute sovereign.

As my father said many times, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

This is why I've always thought we need to hang at least one public official, in each state, a year. Whatever happened to a good public hangin' of a corrupt official?

To which I pray to God that we, as Americans, stop letting the government take what is not theirs to take. Who cares about usurpation? Why would the government go about trying to usurpe liberty and freedom when America, in exchange for perceived security and saftey, are more than willing to freely give them away? The Republican/Conservative fascists are just as free to give up their freedoms and liberties as the Democratic/Liberal socialists are-- In this, they are blood twins, not enemies.

De facto, by definition, means that something exists, but without authority or without reality (source: dictionary.com, wikipedia.org). The Declaration of Independence stated that government was created to protect unalienable rights that were naturally inherent in every living being, given by a Creator, from any encroachment. The founding fathers defined these unalienable rights by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God”, or, in other words, “natural laws”. Natural law (laws of universal nature) existed before any man or government came into existence—hence, natural law simply defined the expression of the way things were (rights) in a state of natural living. They even defined a few of these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). Now, speaking of de facto-ism (taking the natural right of life, for example), and speaking hypothetically: We all have a right to our life by any means we need to extend it (breathing, for example), so long as we do not infringe upon another’s right to do the same. Now, imagine if the federal government made a Constitutional Amendment saying that it was against the law for every child under the age of two to breathe. If every law the government enacted was de jure (the opposite of de facto), and in accordance with the “laws of nature”, every child under the age of two would instantly fall dead from asphyxiation. In order for such a law to be effective, the federal government would have to physically send out policeman to personally choke every child to death. So, even though the law could be physically enforced, it is still not in accordance with natural law. It is obvious that such a scenario is absurd; however, it clearly exemplifies the dangers of de facto law. Just because a group of men get together to make and enforce a law, it does not mean that such is in accordance with “natural law”. When our Republic no longer wishes to remain true to the natural rights and laws which this nation was built upon, there is no longer any protection against the encroachments of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, there IS absolute liberty. It's a misperception that liberty is synonymous with ability. I do not possess the liberty of harming another individual. I do, however, have the ability to prohibit the exercise, justly or unjustly, of another's inalienable liberty. If I were to exercise my ability in assuming an unnatural liberty (that was not my own) in harming another person, I would negate the protection of natural law in behalf of my own liberty. The principle thus applies: I cannot prohibit another's "expression" of liberty and freedom without prohibiting the exercise or expression of my own (notice that "expression" of liberty is not actually "liberty" itself, just the application of an absolute). Absolute liberty does not equal anarchy or tyranny. A society that denies natural law and establishes de facto law in its stead creates anarchy and tyranny. Natural law establishes that there must be natural and universal absolutes; that is, cause and effect. De facto law states that the government can do whatever it wants, regardless of universal absolutes and protections. I have the absolute, unrestrained ability of unjustly striking another human being; however, based on natural law, the consequence, or effect, of forcing my own unjust force upon someone else is that I have abdicated my protection against the same threat... I will be punished to the equal amount of my offense. I still retain my absolute liberty, except that my ability of expression has been limited (punishment). If liberty could be naturally alienated from an individual (limited, reduced, etc.), based on his or her actions (crimes) and/or location (jail, incarceration, etc.), then it wouldn't be "inalienable". Such a perception of liberty goes against the very foundational principles upon which our government was founded. According to natural law, liberty cannot be alienated; however, according to de facto law (going against the principle of inalienable liberty), government can treat the individual as though they have no liberty, regardless of universal reality.

Ah, Reston's utopia. A world where the government can do what it wants to the individual, based upon man's own understanding of what's right and wrong for society -- infringing upon the very living existence of a Homo sapien, child of God, living being, etc. No matter how you look at it, Socialism, or anything like unto it, is against natural law. Regardless of what your faith, belief, thought, or background, once life itself becomes legislated, freedom and liberty are no longer issues. I question people's faith in government, when government is not an entity unto itself, but a group of fallible men and women. Government is not perfect because man is not perfect. People complain about Corporations taking over the country and bad people in capitalism... However, I ask, do you not think that men and women, just as bad, might also fill government positions? The problem with giving government the power is that government has the power of coercion... You can choose to give your business to a corporation, but you cannot go against what the government says... If I disagree with Wal-Mart, I'll stop shopping there, but if I disagree with the government and stop shopping there (paying unlawful taxes), I go to jail, or worse. Why then would we ever give government more power to act in our own self-interest? It is not government's duty to make my wants my needs, and my needs into my rights-- these are not the "rights" the founding father's talked about.

Very true...

Well, we've already licensed drivers, doctors, attorneys, businesses, engineers, construction workers, recreation areas, and every other application of work, etc. I guess it's up to the government to make me safe against smoking, walking in a crowd, any contact or other physical activity or sport where injury may be present, drinking, sex, adolescent behavior, and everything else that can possibly ever become a danger to me. While they're at it, they should make it illegal to become sick and pass the illness on to a co-worker. Wouldn't that be nice? To legislate against any and all viruses and harmful bacteria, I don't know why we haven't thought of this before-- and I thought all we needed to find a medical cure for HIV and AIDS-- Who would have thought that the answer was found in legislation. We just have to legislate against the virus and it would throw its hands in the air and say, "I give up, you got me". In reality, the HIV virus would probably just ignore the legislation like I ignore the speed limit-- We'd just have to make stiffer penalties for the virus. I agree though, licensing is the way to go-- I think we should make it illegal for people to get sick unless they have the government's permission; you never know, they could pass it along to another person. I just don't feel safe unless the government gives me privilege to move and act everyday... What would I do without my benevolent benefactor?

So, eh, yeah-- Ya'll can have your opinions, me and God will have ours.

Umm, then on the same note, not all Republicans are fascists, but all fascists are Republicans.

..laughs.. Thanks Reston for the laugh. "Because they are not equal, but this is indeed equitable"? Are you serious? Where is the "basic humane treatment from our social systems" to the man who has? Should he be inequitably treated because he has more than another? I started out on my own with $20 in my pocket and a car that I couldn't afford to insure or even register... You really think that someone else should have been penalized because of my misfortune? You really think that someone else should have to pay for my own laziness, lack of education, or plain stupidity? I have as many sob stories as the next man, but who cares? It's not my neighbor's fault, why should I make him pay for my own accountability, responsibility, and my own use of agency? How could you EVER consider it equitable, equal, or just to ever do that? Should we start making Ivy League college students serve jail time for the crimes committed by those who grew up in the ghetto and didn't have the ability of going to an Ivy League school? Of course, it's not a crime to be poor; however, it should be a crime to steal from one man who has to pay for another man who doesn't. In reality, the man who has is serving a jail sentence through a portion of everyday-- those minutes in his workday that go to pay for someone else is as good as being in jail. Debt-bondage.

Well said... Equality, joined with freedom, can only be established on an individual basis. Once an individual has his freedom, he can choose to lift those below him to his same level of comfort or not. Only when you start with freedom can you ever have a hope for equality. When equality is sought for first, anarchy and tyranny are soon present.

Ambiguous, but I like it.

Yeah, that idealogy worked really well for the founding fathers. I seem to remember reading Patrick Henry, "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" They gave their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor"-- they didn't say, "Oh, well, I'll capitulate and just keep my own individuality to myself... after all, it's about what I think, not what I do."

May I also add that the slave, that is happy being a slave, also loves the freedom he has from personal accountability, securing his own individual welfare and security, individuality, and personal responsibility. It all depends on what kind of freedom you desire.

Real freedom vs. Perceived freedom. One slave may be as happy and content as possible, because he gets his three square meals a day, a roof over his head, the ability of working, and, if he's a good slave, a decent education. Isn't this the utopia that Reston is always talking about? This type of reality is all the freedom that some people want! That is, freedom from care and worry. However, to another slave, three square meals, a roof over his head, the ability of working, and an education mean absolutely nothing; he wants his "real freedom"! If he's a slave, he has no accountability, he's the property of his master; anything the slave does is under the responsibility of his master; hence, his master can impose any license, privilege, cause or measure that will ensure the master's own security and assurance. The quote is very clear-- it is only hard to understand by those who are happy being slaves.

In a free society, the individual must assume his own accountability and security. If he does not feel secure within the society he is in, he is free to remove himself from it. It is not just for a man to be subservient to another because of their own lack of responsibility. No individual has a "right" to force others around him to capitulate to his wants as though they are his needs or, even worse, his rights. For instance: Insurance is something that a "responsible" man would "assume for his own welfare and security"; however, a man cannot justly force his neighbor to "assume" that "responsibility" for their "own welfare and security". Such would be tyranny. Where would be the end of the chaos then? This is one of the greatest problems in America today: The majority refuses to take personal accountability and responsibility for individual action. Everyone is so very willing to blame everything and everyone else, from the corporations to the banks, the government to their neighbor, and everyone else in between. They blame them for their own misery, poverty, or their social or economic position in life, and refuse to take personal accountability for their own actions. Just because you choose to be a poverty-stricken English teacher or choose to stay in a dying town, don't make me become a fiscal-slave to your stupidity and poor planning-- freakin' socialists. Don’t give me the “Society has put me where I am at and they owe me something” crap. I came from nothing myself! With the help of God, I’ve worked my way through school while putting a roof over my wife and daughter’s head, and food in their mouths—and I did it without stealing from anyone! I didn’t go on any government welfare program to pay for my daughter’s birth, or our house, or our food. I take responsibility for my own. America is near its threshold of those who are far more complacent to accept a free handout from the government than to work harder to make it on their own. I’ve done it. It was hard as hell, but I did it. Take responsibility for yourself America, it's possible, stop leaving it to someone else to do for you. Sorry to the moderator for the long post. I'd give this more stars if I could.

Brilliant!!

Are there flaws in a capitalistic society? Absolutely. Capitalism is merely justice. A perfect utopian society does not exist, nor can it be forced. Regardless of what form of government there is in place, there will always be criminals, terrorists, greedy-money-mongering thugs, and just plain-ol'-rotten-good-for-nothing-lazy-stupid people. You cannot legislate or force these types of people out of society, no matter how many laws are made. This is why socialism doesn't work. While capitalism is only justice, it at least makes mercy possible -- socialism denies justice by using unlawful coercion, and in the process destroys mercy before it was ever a thought. Mercy (or rather, charity) cannot be forced.

Absolutely -- The freedom of conscience is paramount to a free society.

As well as most athiests.

Well said, Archer. We're facing a terrible and increasing problem today in the type of “educated” students we are graduating out of our schools and universities-- we're turning out students who cannot communicate their emotions, thoughts, problems, or concerns intelligently. It’s becoming rarer to find men and women who can use the appropriate words to express themselves, and present an idea to society with an intelligent argument to back it up. What use is free speech to the generation lacks the ability of intelligent communication? It’s another example that our nation cannot remain ignorant and free. If the trend is left unchecked, the next generation may possibly live to see this freedom totally eroded, and lack the ability of doing anything about it.