Jack, brace yourself...I agree with you.

During war, a man is expected, under law, to take the lives of as many of the enemy as he can find in his sights, most of whom are men not so different from himself, who would rather be fishing. But the more usual laws are not merely silent at this time; they are struck dumb by immeasurable disbelief, disbelief that the same society which created laws to order itself also has laws for the extermination of other societies, to change its own members from pursuers of happiness to pursuers of death, and to take from the dead there lives and goods. And what choice have we at such times?

Although I have to assume that her observation is colored by the diabolical "methods and tactics" used by the State Security organs of the Soviet Union between 1917 and the date of this quote, allegedly applied to purge the nation of undesirable elements, but which had the reverse effect.

"No greater fallacy..."? Perhaps there are greater fallacies. Nevertheless, sometimes one is left with little choice. There is always some choice, but it gets to the point where all choices are ugly.

True enough, unfortunately.

I see.

Stalin and Mao were the worst of the worst, destroying and enslaving nations, exiling entire peoples. When did they "put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion"?

The possession of limited power often does so.

Although I do not contradict what Ken has quoted ("16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work."), I insist that no king will ever take my asses.

(1) I do not agree with the quote, which states that the given argument "will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction." (2) Why don't you list which liberties I wish to deny to others? Can you?

I am now reading "The Gulag Archipelago" for the first time. I had already read some other books on similar situations in other regions, but the reality depicted is still quite disturbing to read and condiser, much more shocking than Joe's inability to imagine that someone who disagrees with this quote must be a socialist.

Of course, your statement is accurate, Mike. although they coulkd have held out quite a bit longer. In any case, I have always believed Gorbachev's move to disband to be a Machiavellien ruse designed to have the world believe that the Soviets recognized the folly of communism, but that in fact they are still recuperating, regrouping and planning a massive takeover.

How about the Soviet Union under Gorbachev?

While "absolute power" is undisputedly abused, moreso in the USA by the judiciary, law enforcement, and middle managers than by higher executives, the modern solution to many social issues is to let all do as they please, and so create their version of hell on earth. Now that's progress.

He might be surpised to see his assertion so completely disproved during the last few centuries, when the worst tyrants, genocides, and slavemasters have assumed no such appearance.

If internal combustion engines could run on blood, there would be no overpopulation.

Despots have many deputies.

Me Again: To answer your implied question, if only the citizens of any given country are to fight for their own freedom, it is possible and likely that many more will come to suffer tyranny. One third of the population of the world is under totalitarian rule at this time. For example, if the people of Cuba were never helped by outside forces, they might remain enslaved for another 50 years. If the French were not liberated by the Allies in 1945, they would be speaking German and goose-stepping. If the people of Darfur are not aided, they will starve to death. If the French and Cubans had not contributed as heavily as they did to the cause of the American Revolution, America could still be British (which might actually be an improvement). If America does not promote freedom, by assisting oppressed peoples around the world, eventually America could be isolated as one of few "free nations" while the rest of the world is enslaved under totalitarianism. In each place so enslaved, men would be forced to fight under the flag of their master, against the free nations, and would do so. After all, what would they owe to Americans, who turned their back on others in their time of need? If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem.

That was a crime.

I confess to arrogance, Archer, but deny self-righteousness.

I am the stupidest one here, because I am trying to persuade someone, about whom I am already convinced that he cannopt be persuaded.

You are not a liar because you disagree with me. You are a liar because you refuse to reason honestly, refuse to refer to others' statements in their original context, according to the meaning of the author, and because you take delight in misleading others. If you are not a liar, you just don't have the ability to reason correctly. In either case, you have a problem that should be obvious to those who do reason honestly. You can't mislead all of the people all of the time.

You are contradicting yourself, Jack, which simply supports my statements that you claim not to understand.

But when all is said and done, only those who want to reason honestly will reason honestly, and the rest will distort, lie, slander, libel, defraud, deceive, misrepresent, and mislead at every opportunity, since they wish to and take delight in doing so. They are just like that. They are different from honest people. They just are. And they don't care about anything but their own opinions and desires. That is why the world can't be fixed, because too many people like the twisted way the world is now. Of course, if you really believe that the world does not need to be fixed, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is incomprehensible.

Fine, but the quote is not about that. The quote is about what the author said. And the author speaks of crime. It is to that I have responded. What you have twisted this into has little to do with to what I responded. Now, if you want to keep on talking trash, feel free.