I think I see what you mean Mike. Liberty IS the individual's property and the individual's property IS liberty.

Yes Waff, why do you keep throwing up old arguments that point out a problem that was at least fixed by amendment. I still argue the amendments weren't necessary but to delete sections that made slavery law in America but for some reason (more control gained) they went the convoluted route instead.

Dream on Waffler as you've fallen behind in constitutional power of our administrations. They can't repeal a right that they have sworn an oath to protect without committing treason though that fact hasn't stopped them so far and believe me they have thought about what you just thought about. Check with your masters and if they consider you worthy they will tell you this fact.

Agree Mike, everybody believes and has faith in something and whatever that is becomes their personal religion. It all depends on what one believes in and how strong their faith is. It's plain to see the massive religious faith put in the new god Obama and his "angels" that make up his clerical administration of clergymen.

The guarantee of freedom is the common knowledge of what freedom truly is and that is the absolute anarchic state of the individual in nature free of ANYONE who would seek to control that natural state. When another or others are added to the equation the respect of that same state of freedom each has for the other determines the laws that punish for either or any who violate that natural anarchic state. In other words anarchy is lawful as long as one doesn't violate another's right to be the same way as all are born that way. That's freedom and by voluntary agreement men use their own moral self restraint on their anarchic abilities to abide by the law that respects the rights of another and so avoid criminal punishments provided by the natural laws that are protected with the Constitution. From that point the differences between freedom and slavery are self evident. The quote is way off base in that it implies good can't exist without the bad. Granted we learn the good by experiencing the bad but I think we're all supposed to learn from the bad and not repeat the same bad mistakes. This is what people do not grasp and so the the ever changing "equilibrium of social forces in conflict" remains the rut historical societies were stuck in and ours still is despite the opportunity to rise out of the rut with the great experiment of our founding fathers.

The origin of the word State simply meant what it still means when any administration speaks of, for example, the state of the union address by the president. A free state is the present condition of a free people and to designate the incorporated State as free leaves the mistaken idea that the State of Colorado and its administration had rights and was free to do whatever a free individual could do. I'm sure Mason at the time he said this had no intent to mislead because in common knowledge everyone understood that a State represented the indivinduals within it and their rights and not any rights a State had to make it, free. Waff, The right to bear arms existed long before any militia of the second amendment came along. Individuals have rights, nothing else does and if the right doesn't absolutely belong to him then he has either given that power away to another or another has taken it away from him. If anybody says the right exists solely by the existance of some organization created by men is the same as saying that organization can take the right away. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure NO individual or organization of men created by men, whether it be the militia, the street gang, the shriners, the Brady Bunch or the government as a tool of the Brady Bunch or anybody, could take any rights away without a fight IF forced into one by failure of any one or organization to abide by natural law rights of the individual established and protected with our Constitution that limited the power of government so it could not violate those rights but only defend and protect them.

J Carlton, exactly! Put another way would be laws that promote freedom and laws that demote freedom. Freedom is absolute anarchic power of the individual in his natural state of existance and slavery is that same power controlled by somebody else for whatever end. When 2 individuals agree by contract that puts both in obligation to the other they have agreed to waive certain rights determined by the demands of the laws of contracts such laws by contract of handshake that used to be the respected law of respect of individual rights and since both men did respect each others rights and because of that each knew the other would strive to meet their requirements of the contract because it was the right thing to do and both knew that as well because to not do so would be a wrong done or a criminal act as far as both men were concerned. Anyway, whether voluntary or forced slavery is still slavery so the word itself in an unemotional state of mind really means servitude in one form or another. One is either free or in servitude (slavery) depending on the existence of laws that control thought and therefore action. It must be remembered that every control law forced on an individual violates freedom of choice in thought first. The seat belt law is an excellent example. Thanks Waff. The law makes the free choice decision/action not to wear one against the law and for whatever reason one chooses not to wear one is nobody's business should one choose to exercise the right to privacy. ALL control laws violate that right all the times they are enforced no matter the particular right that is being controlled. The same simple effect of a control law as seen with the seat belt example can be seen in much more serious effect on liberty when a regulation controls the exercise of the 2nd Amendment and in both cases servitude to a control law is slavery. The more laws that control the deeper into slavery a society descends.

The same can be said for those who favor slavery. The storms of contention are coming as evidenced by the ominous effects of the clouds of confusion enveloping America.

RBESRQ-----------In your assumption that those that believe the way we do "are uncaring for those who are unable to care for themselves and the roads, hospitals, utilities, schools, should miraculously be provided by local communities and charities", will soon be a moot issue anyway because the loss of individual rights naturally deprives man of the tools necessary for self survival leading to dependent survival on whatever government that is and its collective idea of what is best for your survival thus for your life. Without these rights, if an individual cannot responsibly take care of himself and it's true one has to help himself before he can help others where does anyone get off telling those who are losing the means to take care of themselves they do not care for others when they are falling into the same boat of dependence more and more Americans are boarding every single day?

Bryan, I agree well said. ----"If we bring politicians' rights back down to a level field with the rest of us and limit their actions so that granting privilege by violating the rights of others is treated as the criminal offense that it is when one of us does it, those in government would have nothing to sell and lobby groups would have no incentive buy."-----To do this all it would take is to start punishing those who corrupt the government tool because they violated their oaths of office.

Agree Mike, some mighty big oops you've listed here.

Somebody ought to tell the treasury this since they've had their constitutional function handed over to the federal reserve.

Yes cal and let's not forget the FDA.

A fine definition of freedom and its purpose.

Desperation is what causes men to seek other men to save them from it.

And when it's used by the weak unfortunately the truth that force must be met with force must be taken into account. On the other hand, it is most fortunate we have the ablity to defend with force.

I'm not sure his reason for the statement but I have to ask. America? Doesn't any of this ring a bell?

Not many writings have withstood the test of time as Bastiat's have. A very intelligent and wise man.

Evidence of a simple natural process depicting a simple form in the layman example and the extreme in the expert example. Because it is a self evident natural process the truth of the quote speaks for itself.

Waffler, you're denial won't help you when your fantasy land finally falls apart around you. You must be joking if you expect many to have faith in your words.

And after this one collapses watch out for international power control junkies who WILL enter among the ruins.

If he is already a slave. If one is free and they know what freedom consists of defense is the order of the day when the slaver first attempts to make a slave out of one.

Mr Salsman and Anonymous. Jefferson simply pointed out the potentiality of all men to become wolves. Notice he said YOU and I.

And to choose! Where is the right to choose in this statement? I'm not trying to shoot the messenger either but "as they wish" doesn't quite say it with the emphasis it deserves and needs today in listing it the FIRST in importance to the free expression of the rest of them. Every right that is controlled by regulation suffers the violation of not only the particular right but every single time the regulation is enforced the right of free choice is violated too. Every, single, time.

I agree Archer, if the truth rings true it stands on its own and doesn't rely on whoever said it to support or hold it up in any way. That is the nature of truth.