And good grief people, just because someone attacks Obama doesn't mean he is pro-Bush. There really isn't much difference. Don't start pulling a Waffler.

Take THAT George W Bush!

Strange...we don't really use either one much anymore.

Thomas, people may indeed die to protect freedom, but that doesn't mean it isn't free. Freedom IS FREE! That is the point! You are born free, endowed by your creator with certain inalienable rights. Soldiers didn't give me my rights, God did. That is not to say I am not grateful for those who give their lives in defense of liberty (pretty rare today if you ask me), but let's not get confused about where liberty comes from.

Coward! Come out and say it! "What we are doing is unconstitutional and I, for one, will not allow freedom to die at the hand of 'security'!" Of course, when was the last time ANY department of the executive branch seriously debated anything, much less constitutionality?!

Sighs....the ideals of a world long past. Will they ever return?

I am not sure you get the point Richard. If you want to talk about drugs that is fine, but taxing drugs has nothing to do with the Constitution or the economy. The point I think is that one is not morally obligated, nor should be bound otherwise, to obey or conform to a "law" that is not authorized by the Constitution. Sure, that may include use or possession of drugs since the regulation of these things is not a power granted to the government in the Constitution. Even so, the taxing of these things is not a power listed in the Constitution either.

So far, so good....though there are threats to this all the time.

Right Wendell, democracy is not synonymous with liberty anymore than monarchy is. In fact, a monarchy, per Aristotle, would be preferable to democracy because it is more likely to respect individual freedom. Democracy is perhaps more subversive than any form of government proposed because it purports to sustain freedom and all the while it rationalizes taking it away for the good of the whole. Some call this semantics but it DOES matter when children are being indoctrinated with this nonsense. Only a Republic based on natural law can maintain individual liberty. The form is less relevant than the function, which should be constrained to minimal by the law. That is not to say that the majority will always wish to constrain it. However, if government is powerless to violate the law, the people cannot use it for such purposes. That is the sum of the matter: bind governmental power such that it cannot be used, even by a majority, to violate the law. This is the importance of respect for the Constitution. Its NOT just a piece of paper. The laws of nature and nature's God cannot be repealed by a vote.

Well, the Constitution can only serve us inasmuch as we adhere to it. As of late, we have been doing our best to ignore it and hope it still means something. Never fear! The Constitution is the law of the land IN NAME ONLY! It poses practically no threat to our current form of government. The threat is the freedom which still burns in the hearts of those who uphold its principles.

Waffler, you haven't truly ever read the Constitution. If you have, you don't understand it because you don't think like those who wrote it. You prefer the state to freedom, while those who wrote the Constitution preferred freedom. You will never understand it until you change your opinion of freedom.

Died 1861, just as his idea of federalism was crumbling. It is sad that he lived to see it.

Clever and flattering words coming from a man who sought the abolition of states' rights.

Well, taxes are generally, by definition, coercive. But, if a community got together and wanted to propose something that would require "public" funding, they could raise funds in a non-coercive way. Each person could be given the option of voting yes or no for a project. Those who vote yes could leave a credit card number. If the needed amount of people voted yes, the pledges would be activated and those who wanted the project would pay for it without coercing those who didn't want to pay into paying for it. Anyway, for the most part, it isn't really necessary for government to raise many funds if it is kept within its just limits. Taxes happen mostly because government is allowed to expand beyond its limits...and vice versa through central bank inflation.

HAHA! I KNEW waffler wouldn't think taxes were too high! HAHA! You still don't get it do you?! What is more wrong waffler: stealing 5 cents from someone or stealing 10 cents from him? The amount is irrelevant. The fact is that the money was exacted by coercion. Waffler mentions that he and his friends are still doing well. Amazing! Can you believe how marvelous the benefits of trade are? Capitalism creates so much wealth that even with the government taxing so much people can still make a profit. That is, unless waffler is working for the government....which is likely....I guess.

Terry, not everyone who denounces socialism is a hypocrite. Some people actually live by what they believe. This is largely untrue for the majority of "moderates" or even "conservatives". They attack the WORD socialism while participating in it all the while. Even so, I would not be in the least injured if the government stopped all its "programs" one day. If it meant people had to get new jobs, that would be good and more efficient. Not everyone is addicted to government doles.

Waffler, you continue to group those who advocate freedom with conservatives when, in fact, your accusation holds no water. So-called conservatives are turning out to be worse than so-called liberals, but the fact remains that they are all part of the same statist ideology that you also espouse. That is, the idea that the state can and should be the solution to societal problems and that solutions to these problems can be brought about by force/coercion. The point is not whether one is against child labor or not---you miss the point ENTIRELY, as usual. The point is freedom. The point is that those who love freedom would not use the power of government to coerce another into doing something just because they feel it is "morally" right. The fact that you DO believe in this idea makes you a non-believer in freedom. You do not trust a person when he is free. You would rather bind him down by the coercive power of the state according to your own moral dictates. I must inform you however that this is not called freedom and no amount of you wanting it to be freedom will make it so. You do not have the authority to repeal natural law.

Taxes are bad

Waffler, you continue to group those who advocate freedom with conservatives when, in fact, your accusation holds no water. So-called conservatives are turning out to be worse than so-called liberals, but the fact remains that they are all part of the same statist ideology that you also espouse. That is, the idea that the state can and should be the solution to societal problems and that solutions to these problems can be brought about by force/coercion. The point is not whether one is against child labor or not---you miss the point ENTIRELY, as usual. The point is freedom. The point is that those who love freedom would not use the power of government to coerce another into doing something just because they feel it is "morally" right. The fact that you DO believe in this idea makes you a non-believer in freedom. You do not trust a person when he is free. You would rather bind him down by the coercive power of the state according to your own moral dictates. I must inform you however that this is not called freedom and no amount of you wanting it to be freedom will make it so. You do not have the authority to repeal natural law.

Right warren.Both communism and fascism are types of socialism. Liberalism means libertarianism in todays' terms.

There you go: socialism and liberty are NOT compatible.

Are you sure this wasn't George Bush or Barrack Obama that said this? This is the same argument used by most all socialists today. "If something has an affect, good or bad, on another person or the nation as a whole, that activity should be regulated, taxed, or subsidized by the government." The idea is simply ridiculous that I should be legally obligated--and therefore worthy of being forced to comply--in matters concerning the "benefits" that I receive as a member of society. Let alone the fact that society and the state are two entirely different things. This idea is the very antithesis of liberty, and I give the smallest credit to Mussolini for at least realizing and admitting that his ideas were not pro-liberty.

I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.

...sighs....I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.

Socialism always runs out of other people's money. It is self-destructive. Only freedom is self-sustaining. To all you socialists and anti-freedomites that post here: please consider the broader implications of what you propose.