Gee -- lots of [long] reactions to a succinct truth, which only lend credence to the initial O'Rourke.

P.J. -- I like your philosophy. I'd paraphrase it:

'I can do anything I damned well please!

What ? You want me to accept responsibility for what I do?'

Even ( no, particularly ! ) the left will assail with every available tool, then invent some nasty and new ones. Think IRS, NSA, various Democrat congress persons. his is not exclusively true, but facts, truth, compassion, nearly all the good qualities, when they remain in our government are most likely found on the right.

I'd be interested in reading Mr. Hylan's proposal(s) to FIX it !
( Or any others: a nice 10 or a dozen "idea points" would suffice.)

... Correct ... except it takes laws for some to conduct rightly.

Succinct and accurate ... but note he says "question," not burn down city hall !

Amen !

What a wonderful site !! Simply reading the ups and downs, whether of thumbs or keyboard keys, sets the grey matter aflutter and won't let it rest. We often fuss and fume over divisiveness ... yet ... let a simple sentence be uttered and Americans -- including North Americans from Canada will tear it limb from limb. HOORAY AND HUZZAH FOR THE FIRST ( and perhaps primary ) AMENDMENT !

PROBLEM: We ( I ) too often FAIL at exercising that power !
The jails and courts are kept busy, not to mention the innumerable neighborhood relationships and geographical boundary fights that arise ... Why ? BECAUSE we think our "self-power" is not merely sound, but absolute.
I'm glad Elie used the word SHOULD, rather than claiming it as an IS.

The last sentence is a near impossibility, what with the dumbing down of our younger generation, we're now missing "newspapers" ( though some sufficiently replaced with technology, but tech has also replaced face to face and one-on-one communication like personal debates and exchanges of ideas. OPINIONS abound -- and concurrent divisiveness.

Sorry -- quote's not QUITE correct. I Googled it, It should be "... she's ..." and not "... he's ..." The quotation is from the My Fair Lady movie ( Julie Andrews ) based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion.
THERE ! Now I can go on to other issues.

Mr. Locke, sir; My reaction to your treatise comes from a Broadway play: "By George, I think he's got it !"

We could interpret it as 'knowledge came / comes from imagination.'

I don't want a world where neither is "important" ... where either can exist without the other.

My favorite pastor said "It's often the case where the question is not "either-or," but "both-and," to which I could say naught but AMEN.

"... WE MUST BE PREPARED TO EXTEND IT TO EVERYONE .." ??
"WE" NEED NOT EXTEND IT -- IT IS -- AND HAS BEEN -- GIVEN BY OUR FOREFATHERS !

Hoffman's correct. The only problem is the "if," which as both society and individuals we ignore, just as we ignore other common sense rules, regulations, doctor's orders and speed signs and ... you name 'em, they are legion ! When rationality goes, well ... maybe one can prevail, but it one doesn't, who's responsible ? Who do we sue ? Whose fault ? "Your honor, "I didn't know -- no one told me ... he did it and it didn't hurt him .... write your own excuses and blames and ... who'll pay ? ... not me ! -- I was a helpless victim .. I didn't know !!
Choices have consequences.

A drug "addict" cf. a baseball "addict" ? SOMEONE NEEDS TO DEFINE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. We need to create a better term for what happens to us when the TV doesn't work for a few hours -- is it comparable to a drug addict being denied ( for whatever reason ) his drug of choice for a few hours ? How about, "I don't like it when the TV doesn't work, I miss it." Do I need to call 9-1-1 ? NO !

It's Bob again -- spreading the word to a friend, it dawned on me that maybe the man from Bethlehem was saying the same thing ( I hope this is close enough to word-for-word KJV ):
"The poor you will always have with you." Is Plutarch agreeing, or at least expressing a similar thought -- and I know Jesus was making a different case, but the cultural milieu similarity strikes a chord, no ?

Interpretation of this quotation leaves my relatively ignorant brain scrambling to "modify," "correct" or in some other way "weave into" my conservative beliefs and with a tip of my ill-informed hat I read the pros and cons of contributors. There are times when things seem "clear" and "concise," other times when it's all too scrambled for my understanding. I expect, given a table 'round which we could all assemble, we might agree on the central thrust of Plutarch's thesis ??