Mike: I would not advise using that explanation in court.

Elizabeth: In the United States, one may abstain from combat by refusing to sign up in the armed forces. If one becomes a soldier, one is agreeing to obey the commander in chief and his subordinates, and has already agreed to go to war when the commander orders it. There are orders that do not have to be obeyed, considered illegal, as those which violate the rules of combat. But the decision to wage war is not left to the individual. During times when a draft is in process, one may declare oneself to be a conscientious objector, and refuse to enter the military service. But that is only respected in cases of documented objection, based on the lifestyle of the individual. In this country, if you are really opposed to war, you do not have to fight. If you are in the military, you have already taken an oath to fight when ordered. Those who do not wish to fight should never take that oath.

I agree with the first clause, and find the second one irrelevant to the topic of the first. If the law is not designed to make anyone happy, what is the point of criticizing the law for failing to do so?

The purpose of the law should be to set limits on behavior, so that others might be respected, and not to make a man happy.

Unfortunately, humans are extremely capricious about what they will accept as just.

I don't shut up, Archer. And you can't make me. What I produce is that which others are too scared to produce, which is dissidence, opposition to injustice. Like it or lump it.

Let them sin, behind bars.

What a shame that our drug-abusing, boozed-up, or otherwise intellectually-challenged compatriots cannot comprehend the need for government to force people to do as they should or pay the consequences.

I moderately disagree on both points: It is not really too early to shoot some bastards. And it is not too late to work within the system. But I like her expression. Most people are not willing to stand up to the system. And most people are not ready to shoot. There is prevalent treasonous behavior on the part of many political representatives that could warrant a few shots.

Archer: Every two years they have me fill out forms to continue to justify my receipt of the funds and every two years I tell them I still cannot tolerate harassment in the workplace. The federal agencies that should have investigated criminality in the workplace refguse to do so. The same agencies are telling me, by their inaction, that I am required to tolerate what the laws are designed to eliminate. I am successfully standing up to the federal government, by insisting that my rights must also be respected. As for not knowing the other people on this site, perhaps you could refer to their comments, your own comments, about others whom ythey do not know. You are a little fellow, aren't you, Archer, without much experience in the real world, huh?

Mike: You could not imagine the extent of my dissidence and consequent rebellion. I dare say I am freer than you, Joe, or most of thse who comment here. I both express my disagreement with the government, when I disagree, and act accordingly. You do what? Blustering vomit. Believe it or not: I am paid by the government not to work, as a result of being "unable to tolerate harassment in the workplace." I receive more than enough to live, and my mortgage is paid off. If the disability is unbelievable, that is the point. Since the government refused to investigate my claims of criminality in the workplace, I filed for disability on the grounds stated above, and they approved it. I have disabilty income from two federal agencies. I did not use an attorney. Now I do with my time whatever I wish, including continuing to criticize the government, to its face, when I feel it is appropriate - NOT when you feel it is appropriate. Make sure to set yoyr alarm clock before you sleep.

Joe: You are unable to distinguish between a socialist and anyone else who disagrees with Rand or with you. Why should I care about your ill-formed opinions?

Blustering vomit.

Works for me.

To abuse is human.

What is true, is true.

Mike: You are being unintelligible.

Within 230 years the modern Americans have invented for themselves a pseudorepublican, schizophrenic rat maze, in which drugs are freely distributed to keep the population marginally functional and apt to remain involved in politics only in the area of their lips, while the more than 50 socialist representatives usher us, with as little to do as possible, into the New World Disorder.

If liberty were the right to do as one pleased, then there would be no consequences for doing that which agressed upon another's rights. Since there are such consequences, liberty is not properly defined as the rtight to do as one pleases. Violating the rights of others is criminal, in many cases. How old are you, Archer?

Hey, Joe! I resemble that remark!

Does it not depend on the political system prevalent in the place and at the time where the maxim is applied? And on the definition of political? Of course, the majority can be wrong, but that is not necessarily in a political sense. Anyway, the majority do not understand what is really in their best interst, but only in their superficial interest.

He was drinkung heavily when he said that.

We are actually moving away from a police state but toward lawlessness. Liberty is not the right to do as you please. We are moving toward people doing as they please. This cannot take place in a police state.

Within the bureaucracy are real human beings who attempt to do a good job. I would not be here except for them. Nevertheless, the quote points out a real problem.

Henry Kissinger knows of what he speaks, as he is among the 90%.