Little resemblance to reality? This is total reality! "The Soviet Union, Rome, Greece, Babylonia, Egypt and other empires" were all destroyed because of corruption and bureaucracy from within! I completely agree with Archer-- why is the IRS still here? Because it IS the "bureaucracy" that Reese is talking about - The same "bureaucracy" that has been given power that will never be relinquished-- The unwritten rule of government is to create and make more government... There is no government in history that, over time, hasn't sought to expand its power, enlarge its borders, increase its laws and statutes, and broaden its influence to its own people and the nations of the world. History has proven that once power is given to government (it having the power of coercion), it cannot be easily revoked (if at all) without some type of war and/or revolution. Once power has been given by the people to the government (or simply usurped from the people), it is nearly impossible to ever retake it-- regardless of what "due-process" measure is supposedly available to the people.

Hence the reason that the Patriot Act and all such Acts should be done away -- the scale of perceived benefits to liberties destroyed is not equal... Then again, no benefit, regardless of how "secure" or "protected" it supposedly makes me, is ever is worth my liberty or freedom of choice. I rate 5 stars for content, though it's ironic considering the source.

Too bad the liberal left are so intent upon taking this liberty from the collective in service to their special interest groups (the lazy and the thieving left).

Joe, I think you're absolutely right about the damage. Though I think Mencken was right in his observation of democracies, because, once each political party grows stronger than the next, in such a democracy, the other parties must show that the party in power is unfit -- this is the only way to overthrow the majority, while in a democracy. Our supposed anti-democratic Republic, however, can also exist with parties, though it is difficult without sliding into a democracy. As Archer said, "No party is fit to 'rule' -- their job is to secure the Liberty of the people." In a Republic, it doesn't matter WHAT the masses (different parties) want, if it violates the foundation of the individual's rights, liberties, and freedoms -- it can't be done.

Well said. The problems in America today have nothing to do with party politics.

The Robin Hood syndrome.

When government provides the people's "wants" as their "needs," it's a quick slippery slope from it claiming the people's "needs" as their "rights." Such is the demise of a Republic. When my elected official claims that it is my poor neighbor's "want" to have my money, I tell that elected offical to go to hell, and I keep my hard earned money. When my elected offical claims that it is my poor neighbor's "need" to have my money to live, and it is necessary, regardless of my own choice, to give it to him-- then I fight against the encroachment upon my Liberty. But, when my elected offical can force me to pay for my neighbor's "right" to my own money, my Liberty is no longer in question -- it is dead.

Banal? Yes, there is an easily predictable flow to this quote; however, that does not make it any less true. When a man seeks to overthrow the liberty and freedom of the masses, we call him a "terrorist," "criminal," or "tyrant." But in today's society, in our non-Republic "Socialist Democracy," the majority has no qualms with squashing the minority. Proponents of Democracy will argue that the reason the law is enforced is to protect the minority from the onslaught of the majority. Be this as it may, in a democracy, how did the law come to be? By the majority, of course. This being the case, there are no recognized or perceived absolute laws or rights-- these things are given to men by the majority, and just as easily as these rights and these have been given, they can be taken away! As such, all laws, in a democracy, are de facto. Democracy is the Achilles’ heel of a Republic—when the individual is no longer protected by human or unalienable rights and laws, but by the promises of the majority, freedom, liberty, and self-protection is quickly lost.

5 stars on content alone-- Ironic though, considering the source.

Well said.

Absolutely! It seems the Democrats want to do this through Socialism, and the Republicans, while claiming "small government," are fascist. Either way, the majority of Americans seem to want to be controlled somehow, it gives them a sense of security to be a slave.

I object.

Simon, you're right - In Social Democracies, Socialism excells - but at what cost? The United States is NOT a democracy (or it shouldn't be by our Constitution), but is a Republic. I'm not going to argue the difference here; however, it's not a very strong argument to use "European social democracies" as your example. France, for example, being one of the most socialist countries, is having a hard time keeping their people working. It is nearly impossible to fire anyone from their job in France; it's so hard, in fact, that many people don't even show up for work... If this weren't enough, the people are starting to realize that they can get as much from the government in socialized welfare as they can if they were to work a solid 8 hour day; because of this, more and more people are going on welfare under suspicious ailments. Furthermore, to labal "Christians" as "the most rapacious thieves ever seen in history" is gross speculation. How do you know this? Have you talked to the majority of the "most rapacious theieves ever seen in history"? The USA just may be the proudest nation in the world-- it unarguably created the greatest wealth, success, progress, and contribution to everything from health and science to economics and the standard of living. How has the USA done so? The USA grew to power because man was able to be completely free to work, without restraint or coercion, towards his own destiny. He wasn't forced to take care of duties and responsibilities that weren't his. Socialists will argue that all Capitalists are greedy and selfish--- as Terry would so aptly put it -- ROT!! How is it, Simon, that in Capitalist America, even our poor have a better standard of living than the middle-class of some Socialist nations? To want to be left alone is not greedy! To want to work only for oneself is not selfishness. Perhaps the USA actually has something to be proud of, eh?

...and here is the real fear-- that the same people that tax for the "military industrial complex" are also deciding where the tax goes to "support those in need." If a small group of men cannot be trusted with the people's money, but are spending it on the "military industrial complex," what makes you think they can tax the people's "charity," and be trusted to actually "support those in need"? There doesn't exist, nor can there be implemented, enough checks and balances to keep government honest when it comes to the people's "charity." Look at what they have done to Social Security. Government has absolutely no place in the business in the re-distribution of money-- Government, having the "legal" and physical power of unlawful coercion, cannot, by any de jure means, collect on people's charity or compassion-- Charity and compassion are what they are because they are established on choice. The charitable man didn't HAVE to give the beggar a job, but he did anyway. If this same man were forced to give the beggar a job, against his own free-will and choice, would it then be a charitable or a compassionate act? No. However, because such words are used, such as: charity, compassion, patriot (patriot act), and intelligence (intelligence act)-- uninformed people automatically think these are good things; after all, who would argue against being charitable and compassionate to the needy? Or being a patriot to his country; furthermore, what uninformed and ignorant person would actually argue against something labeled "intelligence"? Just because something is called by a particular name, doesn't mean it abides by its definition.

I'll give it 5, on mere truth alone.

Terry, you clearly missed Mike's point. The quote is misleading when looking at it from the point of a Republic. Take for instance a government who unlawfully decided to cut all men's right hands off; however, in the process it gave you an allowance to keep one or two finger - Would you then be thankful to the government who unlawfully sought to cut off your hand, just because they let you keep a few fingers? Hell no! So what, if you saved a few fingers in the process, it wasn't the government's "right" to take the other fingers... Mike's argument is clearly in the realm of "accuracy". In a "Democratic Socialist" society, man has no rights, and therefore, government can come in whenever it wants and take the same. This quote - within this premis - has clearly placed us within the realm of a Democratic Socialist society, by it's own definition. What are "We the People" now suppose to say to our government? "Gee, thanks for not taking EVERYTHING from me, and allowing me to find a way to structure myself to be in the lowest possible tax bracket?" Are you kidding?! In a Republic, there can clearly be NO Income Tax -- it violates the very foundation of a Republican form of government... The "accuracy" that Mike was talking about had nothing to do with the tax code or the IRS, but about our Republican form of government against our present Socialist form of government.

..laughs.. Anon, Socialist welfare was NOT what Jefferson had in mind. The "General Welfare" was also to be in accord with the "Republic" which we were supposedly "guaranteed" - Remember? You can't have a Republic and a Welfare State, they are diametrically opposed to each other - Nice try though.

What do you want to bet that Annonymous works for the I.R.S. lol. Why is it that all the Socialists never provide their names? Is this because they don't feel that they are individuals, but merely a drone of the masses? They must be pretty intuitive, because that's all a Socialist is.

Truth is good.

I don't divorce myself from the concerns of my fellow man, I just don't think it's the government's job to FORCE me to do it. I give donations to my own personal charities and personal venues without being coerced to do so. I know exactly where my money goes and why - unlike the "charitable donation" I give to FICA every two weeks. I can give just fine, even when I'm not coerced or compelled! **GASP** What an amazing concept! To actually GIVE because you CAN and not because you were FORCED! Just one of those capitalist things that I guess Socialists will never get.

Funny how the main socialist promoting blogger on here gives 5 stars to Mussolini... For Socialism to fully work, it would take a dictator - funny how that sounds a lot like fascism. ..laughs.. Wow - this just in - Republicans and Democrats are A LOT ALIKE.

An "anti-socialist" or "non-social-ist" society needn't exist in order to have roads, power, sewer, or things of the like - to say that a type of "social-ist"economy needs to exist, in some form for these things is like saying, "we need a democracy in order for us to vote". Democracies have no patent on voting or "voice of the people" type government - you can have a pure Republic and vote and have a voice of the people type government too - such is the same with the above, social-ist type principles are not needed to live in a society. Being social has nothing at all to do with Socialism. Building roads, generating power for the masses, providing water and electricty, etc. - these are not commodities that can only be provided in a Socialist setting - a pure Republic, without any social-ist principle, can provide these just as well. However, to be fair, that's not how things are run - socialist type principles are instituted nowadays to provide these things for the people - but that doesn't mean the way we're doing them is the best or most efficient way that these services could be provided.

the Fall of the USSR

The "law" in a Republic cannot do such a thing! Enforced compassion, virtue, morality, religion, etc. - these are things that government CANNOT regulate! You cannot legislate morality! You cannot legislate virtue! You cannot legislate compassion! You cannot legislate love! I cannot force my neighbor to love, serve, or have compassion on me or someone else! How then, in my Republic, can I delegate to my elected servant (government) a "right" or "privilege" to force my neighbor to do these under "standards for ethical and compassionate behaviour" concerning something I have no right in myself?! To do so would be UNETHICAL!! It is tyranny and usurpation!! The United States Republic CANNOT assume a right, privilege, or power that the individual himself cannot delegate to it! If I were to break into my neighbor's house and force him to pay the rent of the poor guy down the street, I'd be locked up!! How can I then delegate to my servant a right that I do not have the ability to enforce myself as an individual?! You cannot do this in a Republic!!! But yet, this has happened! Theft by due-process!

Compassion is voluntary - when it is forced, it's tyranny.