"Of all the laws on the books about killing and stealing etcetera one I would like to see is one about lying." Hmmm, I guess the Waffler hasn't heard about the laws against fraud. What a moron! If you looked up "ignorant" in the dictionary you'd probably see a picture of the Waffler.

"I know not what Bryan is blabbing about." Maybe you should try a dictionary. As inconvenient as it is, and contrary to what public schools teach, words have meanings. It is quite telling that simply defining the terms is considered "babbling" to some. The only excuse for such an attitude is ignorance or apathy. Try reading it again. Push is not the same as stop. Think of the two like the pedals of a car. One, the accelerator, makes the car go. The other, the brake, makes the car stop. One is the compellerator, the other is the stopperator. It's really not that difficult to understand.

So, let me see if I have this straight. If someone uses plain English and someone else doesn't understand it, then they're using "encryption." For example, if someone uses the verb compel: to force or drive, esp. to a course of action; to force to act, which is derived from the Latin, com + pellere: to force or drive together. The antonyms of which are, block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct and stop, and the reader/listener doesn't understand the difference between forcing someone to act, (compelling), and preventing someone from acting, (blocking), then the writer/orator is using encryption. You see, while it is possible to compel you to go jump in the lake, It is impossible to compel you NOT to jump in the lake. I can block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct or stop you from doing it, but I cannot compel you not to. I can compel you to put nutritional labels on your products, but I cannot compel you not to. I can, however, block, check, delay, deter, hinder, impede, obstruct or stop you. It is a subtle, but very important difference.

Odd. The quote is about the freedom to speak without having ones speech forced by edicts and censorship into political correctness. Changes like stewardess to flight attendant resulted from free market influences, as it should be, not by the force of edicts. You cannot state that "In a free society, such as ours, changes are made freely and over time." and simultaneously defend the government force used against the minority by the majority. That is not the freedom to change. That's the freedom to obey or be punished. It is true; In a FREE society changes are made freely and over time, but in ours, change is decided at the ballot box and then forced on everyone else. There's nothing free about that.

I suppose it might be how you read the quote. It could be that the "equilibrium of social forces in conflict" represents the ability to agree to disagree without either party's rights being violated, and that the "triumph of any one force" represents the ballot box wherein the strength in numbers of the majority triumphs over the rights of the minority.

Just laws only prevent people from violating the negative rights of others, not compel people to act. This seems to be the very simple difference that some either cannot, or do not want to understand. When your individual rights are violated you have the right to defend yourself regardless of what title the perpetrator is wearing or what legislation he uses to back up his claim. You don't need a Constitution to tell you that.

Natural law is absolutely knowable, but fallible humans, including the founders of these united States or the majority of voters, cannot be trusted to "set it down."

It reminds me of how the words on the side of the barn in "Animal Farm" were altered from-Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed. No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall kill any other animal. All animals are equal. - to - Four legs good, two legs better. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If you want to see what government run health care looks like, just visit a V.A. hospital.

It isn't that libertarians do not care, we simply see a better, more just way to accomplish those ends. For some information on that aspect, I would highly recommend "Healing Our World." http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ruwart_all.html There is a semantics problem with government as well. The problem isn't "government," but who has the right to govern and what rights and privileges should those who govern have. The most just system is one where everyone's equal negative rights are respected and reactively defended. It is when those who govern grant privilege to one group by violating the rights of others, (like the examples you cited - Corporations, the FED, greedy politicians, the banks, corrupt government, campaign financing, etc...), that the problems manifest themselves. As an individual I have no right to steal, even if you're well off and my intentions are to give the plunder to someone in need, but for some reason we seem to believe that if I'm elected to public office, I suddenly have that right. As an individual, I cannot compel you to sell your possessions for a certain price, certain quantities or qualities, but give me the power of the State and we call it regulation. I can't print currency, but the FRB can. I can't grant corporations legal monopolies, but your congressmen can. As for campaign finance, the problem isn't who can give or how much, but what politicians have to "sell" to their donors. 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.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Man, what was that dude smokin'?

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it ...... good and hard." H. L. Mencken. We have no one to blame but ourselves. The government has been more than happy to supply the metal we needed to forge our own chains.

Money is power, but power is immeasurably more dangerous when legitimized by the state. Kill one man and you're a murderer. Kill one hundred for the state and you're a hero. Violate the liberty of others and it's called slavery. Do it as a member of government and that's called regulation. Take you neighbor's property by coercive force and that's theft. Do it for the government and that's taxation. Print a million dollars of fiat currency in your basement and that's fraud, (counterfeiting), Print a few trillion with the monopoly to do so granted by the state and you're the Federal Reserve Bank.

Randolph Borne was anti-war. "War is the health of the state," was a negative commentary on a sad but true condition. The comment comes from "The State" which can be read here: http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

Democracy's just an improved method of spreading tyranny and making it more palatable to the common dufus.

I agree with Mike. Either Lincoln didn't understand democracy or he was being purposely deceptive. Considering Lincoln's record, I think the latter is most likely.

Sure Woodie, what we needed was a system of credit that was governmentally concentrated without any limitations, checks or balances instead, who grant economic freedom to irresponsible people so they can malinvest and bring the whole thing crashing down. Credit is highly overrated. I prefer to earn it before I spend it. Maybe we should bring back debtors' prisons.

Of all people, an inventor should be most aware that ideas with the best of intentions can and will be perverted.

Praising the Fed for its success is like praising a burglar for not being caught. The scam has about run its course, though and unfortunately, the tab will be paid by you and me. Eccles' quote sounds like the bad guy in the movies screaming, "You'll never catch me." All it needs is a maniacal laugh at the end.

It's smoke and mirrors, Waff. We've out consumed production for years. The "wealth" is all Fed created debt. It's a debt which is coming painfully due soon. But as they say, ignorance is bliss. Maybe Keynes was right and we'll all be dead before the debt comes due.

The quote is from '32. Consider that in the light of where we are now. The only reason the Fed has the monopoly on currency is the legal tender laws imposed by government. Claiming that the two are at odds with each other is part of the swindle. Government produces nothing. So to fund the welfare, warfare, industrial, congressional complex, it either taxes, which it can only do to a certain extent before we break out the torches and pitchforks, or it can create fiat currency, which causes debt and inflation always followed by economic depression.

Hey, it's a good time to watch the Mises video on YouTube, "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" again!

That's Austrian as in Austrian economic theory, Waff. It doesn't refer to the economy in Austria or economists who currently reside there. People who have studied Austrian economic theory have been predicting the current bubble and burst for quite some time. It is the result of the business cycle created by the meddling of central planners.