Five stars for inspirational rhetoric. I wish we knew where this was stated and in what context. Fact is, many do wish to be cradled. Many have not developed their natural ablities. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a natural desire to prefer safety to danger. As for the monstrosity to which Deputy Hoff refers, it certainly is a monstosity, and worth much attention, derision, and reform. Nevertheless, without a federal government, the United States would certainly be conquered. If it continues much farther down the path it is on, perhaps there will be no United States resembling in any way the one for which the American Revolution was fought. Since the complaints of those who fought the Revolution have not all been resolved, perhaps we should consider the Revolution of 1776 to be still under way.

Anarchy doesn't work. Government is preferable to anarchy. Government needs improvement. Social reformers are overrated. Officials aren't held to account. Corruption is everywhere. People need to control themselves or be controlled by an outside force. Complete freedom does not exist, and will not.

Joe: Are you referring to when we attacked Japan or to the imminent attack on Iran?

OK. What I posed were not questions. They were challenges. I meant to imply that the challenges begged answers. Forgive me for overestimating you.

E. Archer: I wonder whether you are even aware that you sidestepped most of the questions, the ones you can't contest.

E. Archer must be very young indeed if he is able to convince himself that "There is no natural born responsibility to the 'collective'." Ignorance is bliss, but the epiphany will be painful.

E. Archer: You are contradicting yourself. In fact, you recognize, in your last statement, that we have responsibilities to the collective. There is nothing unjust about this, as long as the collective respects our rights. Fact is, respect for anyone and anything is as rare a commodity in our society as is common sense. Our court systems are corrupt and inadequately arranged. Our school systems just plain suck, producing more harm than good, in may cases. And our officials are not made to respond for their crimes. So I guess I am saying that I do not know why we are discussing rights, while we claim to have many but enjoy few.

E. Archer: Try crashing your vehicle, while not having obtained liabilty insurance. Try demonstrating, in the street, without a permit issued by the police department f the jurisdiction where you demonstrate. Try smoking pot in front of the police station (well, maybe you could get away with that). Try shooting your gun in the city, just to hear the bang. Try pulling down your pants and defecating on the sidewalk. Try selling pirated copies of the Bible or other copyrighted material. Try crossing the street against the traffic light...in San Diego, at least, you get ticketed for jaywalking. Try ignoring the red lights. While you are "minding your own business" you are constantly crossing paths with others who are also minding their own business. Who is going to move aside to let the other pass? I do not know. But whoever refuses to do so might be made to respond for something like battery, or some other little crime, for not fulfilling a citizen's responsibility to negotiate the right of way in good faith.

You have responsibilities that are legitimately imposed by the collective. You have the choice to comply or evacuate, or otherwise suffer the consequences of your refusal to meet the responsibilities reasonably imposed. If you leave, you will probably relocate to another collective, with another set of responsibilities that it will impose on you. If you do not comply, you will suffer the consequences.

So then individuals have no more rights than the collective that they compose? Does the collective have the right to obligate the individual not to defecate in the street? Does the collective have the right to obligate the individual not to discharge a firearm within city limits, accept in defense of persons or property?

Fredrich's statement oversimplifies the significance of so-called socialist ideas/intentions and overmagnifies the significance of their opposing ideas. The best of socialism did not originate with socialists, and the best of democratic systems is that they oppose the pseudosocialist dictatorships (or they used to, anyway). Voluntary collectivism is as acceptable (to me) as voluntary individualistic socio-political/economic systems. Compelling a person to live a given lifestyle (outside of certain considerations for safety and hygiene) is THE crime. If you believe that in the USA we are not in danger of being compelled to accept "socialism," you should see the textbooks being given to schoolchildren today: Vamos a Cuba, which means to indoctrinate primary school students into thinking that everything in Cuba is just fine and dandy, and Cuban Kids, which is for the slightly older ones, with the same agenda, adding anti-American thinking/lies. Some are so paranoid about the pseudosocialists that they miss the gangrene crawling up their own legs.

In addition, any attempt to deny that we have a responsibility to those who live around us, or in whose midst we live, is a denial of reality, and possibly a first symptom of incipient sociopathy.

Perhaps I missed the point. I would say that the nations which are today ruled by totalitarian regimes are ruled collectively, that their populations are subjugated collectively, and that their liberty is denied to the group.

I concur with MK of Houston. You might as well be your own man; you are so before the law. Remember the recent John Locke quote...every person must decide for himself whether to obey or rebel against the magistrate. You own yourself and your rights, in a sense, but you also own your responsibilities and the consequences of your actions. If you cross the line, and there are lines, you will pay the price. Freedom is not license to do as you please. And whether you know it or not, on some level you agree to obey God or the Devil.

Has civilization advanced? I am for freedom of thought; but aside from technological advances, I am not sure that civilization has progressed.

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba also refer to their governments as republican, while they are totalitarian. As to our government, I frankly do not understand why they have not charged me with something; I have been sending letters and emails to the president and the Justice Department regarding the elimination of Castro. Maybe they are watching to see whether I cross the line. I already wrote that I would support any effort by any person to eliminate Castro's regime. Maybe I will soon be commenting via the prison computer.

Terry: Why don't you answer the questions put to Archer, instead of distorting the point? Highly inconvenient could be, for example, a multitude of undocumented immigrants blocking the entrance to your store as part of their boycott.

E. Archer: Do you mean to say that we should neither have, use, nor obey the police? Or do you mean that we have unlimited rights to do as we please? Or do you mean that offenders should go unpunished? Or do you mean that, since many corrupt individuals escape justice, no one should pay for his crimes? What are you saying? Of course each of us must decide whether or not to obey the laws; which obviously takes place constantly, since criminality is engaged in routinely. You are not advocating for anarchy, are you?

Sounds to me like Mr. Herbert probably grew up in a Catholic home and city. Religion can be oppressive, procrustean, and dictatorial. A relationship with God and a spiritual lifestyle, on the other hand, can be liberating.

There are systems of democratic (voluntary) socialism, and others in which alleged democracies are ruled by whoever has the money, plutocracy. Whoever willingly dwells in a socialist atmosphere gets what he chooses. Whoever lives in a plutocracy, having no money or other tool of leverage, suffers restraint and servitude, regardless of the facade of democracy that environment sustains.

There is no freedom without law, or respect for law, the rights of others, and the responsibilities of all. Submitting to authority is fine, as long as the authority is carrying out its legitimate functions of protecting rights and requiring that all fulfill their responsibilities. Why do we call 911? At times we call 911 because someone is not obeying a law, respecting a right, or fulfilling a responsibility, the result of which will be highly inconvenient, destructive, deadly, or injurious. A mass movement to support justice would be nice.

China executes pacificst Falun Gong members by removing their internal organs. I guess that is kind, if they use anesthesia. There is no socialism in evidence, in fact, in China, North Korea, Cuba, or any of the totalitarian regimes, other than in their rhetoric and slogans.

I live a little over 100 miles from a regime that claims to be far left, with a population of 11 million slaves. Simon, you are so, so wrong (and left).

Sit on your thumb, Simon.

Uncontrolled welfare benefit allocation, uncontrolled support of undocumented aliens, self-preservation of the IRS, outrageous misallocation of education funds (on which we spend more than on national defense, with no obvious benefit), and corruption at all levels of every government.......