There exist rational limits to what one should be permitted to do. If you are unwilling to control your own behavior, and disrespect or abuse others do to your enjoyment of limitless action, then you should be controlled by an outside force. Freedom is not the right to do whatever you please.

It is not about right and left. It is about right and wrong. The left thinks it is right, while the right thinks that the left is wrong. And the left thinks that the right is wrong, while the right thinks that the right is right. The right is right about a few things and the left is also right about a few things. But what the left refuses to acknowledge is that a far right has usually been much less abusive than a far left. Both extremes are wrong. It is wrong to force people to abandon their faith in order to avoid extermination, a method lately used by all the major far left factions. It is wrong to force people to work as hard as they can but only receive compensation equal to what a lazy slouch receives. It is wrong to support lazy bums. And it is wrong to allow acquisition of as much as you can get, regardless of the impact on others. Wrong is wrong, on the right or on the left.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel." And whoever claims the right to control all that exists is claiming the right to treat human beings as irrelevant.

I thought that Sowell was quoting Ambrose Bierce.

We should support the disabled, the orphans, and the elderly, not the lazy, the thieving, or the able-bodied. Rand's statement is valid within its context. However, whereas the amount of material property that exists is finite, the entire population requires the use of some of it; and some of the population is prevented from using enough of that property for their own subsistence. This is factual, not abstract. When the megawealthy retain more property for their personal use or caprice, than a certain amount that might allow enough surplus for the megapoor to utilize for subsistence, there occurs starvation. In some places, this is going on now for the reason stated. Capatalism encourages the acquisition of as much as you can get, but justice also hints at leaving something over for the poor slobs whom you are beating in the capatalist competition. If you don't leave them something, you should not be surprised to find yourself in Hell one day.

We should support the disabled, the orphans, and the elderly, not the lazy, the thieving, or the able-bodied.

We should support the disabled, elderly, and orphans, not the lazy, thieving, and able-bodied.

$10 says Anonymous in Reston gives this the thumbs down.

I think that I would probably complain less if I had more of that money.

Hey, anonymous...are you really so dense?

Judge Cummings? Didn't he disappear suddenly?

Hooray for Presti.

Pardon me, but therte is plenty they could do...just that it would get very ugly.

Give them just a little more rope, and the debt will disappear.

We all must be compelled at times. Don't you remember when you were a little bastard whose parents were tearing their hair out because he was a little wild monster? Compelling everyone to abide by minimum standards of behavior is not evil. Insisting that a certain degree of education be attempted (thanks, Berg) is not evil. If you absolutely refuse to educate yourself, sooner or later you will get what you have coming, because you are so stupid already that you will most likely make many more stupid decisions. I do not argue against the idea that public education currently sucks. I argue that everyone requires some education to function in the world. The current statuse of indoctrination in many public school systems is deplorable (I hate that woed, but it fits). The entire public education system requires major reformation. But I would not like to see the millions of potential monsters loosed on the streets in the name of freedom.

You haven't answered any of the questions.

If the state does not compel the people to abide by certain standards, such as obtaining a certain degree of education, who will provide that education in the many cases where parents are not capable of providing it? Berg wrote "Yeah, but they teach self-esteem blended cleverly with no skills and no information so as to make the students ignorant and talent free and proud of it." Fine. So reform education. But by leaving it exclusively to parents, you are giving the green light to anything anyone's caprice desires, which would not be an improvement. And who will teach the children of the illiterate to read?

What Jefferson proposed is NOT taught in the primary grades. There is a pretenes of teaching, a pretense of learning, a pretense of a process of education. If all kindergarteners actually learned what Jefferson proposed, we would be in a Golden Age (GIlt, if you prefer).

Based on what Archer has quoted of Jefferson's intentions for primary education, with little else by way of variance, I agree with Jefferson.

So you have two doors. On the right, you have the door through which students pass upon choosing voluntary attendance. As they enter through this door, they are met by all the good things life has to offer. On the left, you have the door through which they pass if they refuse to attend school. As they enter, they are eaten by wild pigs. That'll teach them a lesson.

It is paradoxical: Your education is your responsibility, because if you do not become educated, the results are your problem. However, the results present multiple problems for society at large. So it is in the interests of society to assure a certain degree of education (the type it is apparently neglecting the most) for the general good. No? I would think it is a problem that all should consider at least partly their own. Face it, my stupidity and ignorance will negatively impact you (which I guess you have already figured out) and the more there are of the ignorant type, unprepared to deal with the multitude of issues that need to be constantly addressed, the worse the impact on the rest. Oh, I forgot....that IS what we are facing.

Yadduh yadduh yadduh...Dumbed-down US citizens? Oh, the ones who are filling their lungs with marijuana. And defending their "right" to snort or inject whatever they might like. On the front lines? Don't forget to duck. (And when I here your name for the first time, outside of this forum, I might believe it. Is E. for Edgar, Ephraim or Elvis?) Better hurry, April 15th is right around the corner.

That anyone could find that ALL are capable of evaluating anything is beyond comprehension. That Archer could believe it is doubtful.

Lead the way, Archer.

I do not agree with Locke that we are all qualified. The rest is true. Perhaps Clinton was elected because we are not all qualified. God warned a long time ago about what would happen, and is happening, and Clinton is a perfect reflection of the details of the warning.