This used to be known as common sense...  Socialism is a vampire.

Honest debate in the 21st century is practically non-existent.

'Hate speech,' 'misinformation,' and hollow accusations of racism, sexism, misogyny crowd out any chance for a free and fair discussion about any meaningful issue today.  Propaganda rules.

It is indeed discouraging to see what appears to be the majority of the common people being duped by the lies of the powers-that-should-not-be.  The hobgoblins of 'climate change,' 'white supremacy,' 'insurrection,' etc. insist on monolithic belief and one-party rule.  Every social institution has been corrupted to further the goals of authoritarianism and the submission of all to a false religion, ruled by centralized wealth and power.

The globalists operate in the open now without fear since every 'free' nation has succumbed to their cabal.  "You will own nothing and be happy." — or you'll be dead...

Wake up Americans!  If we don't defend our Liberty at home, it cannot live anywhere. 

Yes, please, Fred, prove Mike's points that you repeatedly proclaim ad nauseum.  I assert your 'perspective' is greatly flawed and at odds with rights of man and the laws of nature.  I need only read my numerous past posts for the defense of my argument.

"In God We Trust" — not politicians!  Hence the checks and balances of a republican form of government. Why?  Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Words on the obverse side of American coinage used to appear "Mind Your Business" — in more ways than one! ;-)

Use the word "republican" to describe the form of government, not 'democracy.'  A 'republic' does not necessarily mean a republican form of government — see the USSR and other totalitarian states. 

A 'republican' refers to one who supports a republican form of government.  A 'democrat' refers to one who supports a democracy which is little more than 51 people telling 100 people what they must do — often those 51 are easily swayed by a few designing men. 

The republican form of government is the only one that is not at constant war with the rights of the people — all others are 'statist' forms, i.e. wherein the government (the State) is sovereign and supreme, and the people are subservient and subjects. 

The republican form of government is subservient to the People that created it, who are each sovereign in their own capacity with inalienable rights that can never be voted or legislated away by the State.  The State is subject and subservient to We The People.  The State is to be comprised of representatives of the People who have their equal rights before the Law.

The true battle is between republicans and statists.  The governments of the USA are guaranteed to be republican by the US and State Constitutions.  Not everything may be put up for vote.  The cause of republican government is to protect the Liberty of the People, not to dictate.  The Bill of Rights sets limits on the government, not the People.

When democrats say that republicans are a threat to "our democracy" they are absolutely right!  And well we should be!  "Our democracy" means "our power," and that power has been unlawfully claimed by 'democrats' over the rights of the People to 'govern' themselves — that is to say, to be responsible for themselves without dictates from the State.

In the words of Javier Milei, the new libertarian president-elect of Argentina: 

“I did not come here to guide lambs. I came here to awaken lions.”

I respectfully disagree, Robert.  Socialists resort to dark humor to make light of their excesses, all the while still adhering to their vampiric ideology. 

Members of the Fabian Society were/are not joking, they are deadly serious — as deadly serious as their progenitors like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.  Fascism is socialism, and it has never been more prevalent in global governance than today. 

True republicans are not 'far-right' — the far-right are the fascists, with the far-left being the communists.  Republicans are above the scale, they are the original and classic liberals.  All the rest are statists, whether on the right or the left, they are authoritarians laying claim to what is not theirs — the great appropriators and ultimate hypocrites.  All for Power and ego playing God.  They are liars and thieves fooling themselves with the false equivalency of compassion being their guide.

Yes, we should be true and loving with our neighbors, and if we were, there would be fewer ills in society.  "This is the way."  But it only works when it comes voluntarily from each individual.  Love cannot be legislated, no matter how integral it is to peace, harmony, and prosperity. 

Socialists are not loving — certainly not towards anyone who rebukes their claim to authority — for them they have fomented the most awful hatred and scorn, for the lovers of liberty are the rock they throw themselves upon.

May the reign of Truth and Love be established within all mankind.

I agree with the old hymn "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me."  Self-awareness of one's own impulses is a start, but even Gandhi acknowledged that we must ever resist and stand up against tyranny.  Knowing your rights is a start, defending them is a responsibility. 

In America, the citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his country, because history has ever shown that a defenseless people will not keep their hard-fought freedom for long otherwise. (See any socialist/communist nation.)  

The tree of liberty must sometimes be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.

Unfortunately, the tendency of the monarchical British Commonwealths, like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others with the Queen (now King) printed on their currency, is that they are still statist, under the rule of the State in whatever form, and invariably build up the organs of the State at the cost of their 'subjects.'  Unlike the USA, the citizens are subservient to the Crown's government, whereas in the republican form of government, the rights of the People are paramount and cannot be abridged by legislation — ever.

Today's British Commonwealths have become fascistic and authoritarian, ever embracing more totalitarian rules that restrict speech, travel, property, labor, and even consent itself.  There is no right to Liberty in any of these countries, only the permission to follow the rules set from on high, which can be overturned in subsequent elections ever more rigged to favor 'globalist' policies that enrich an elite few and indenture further the people into abject servitude — or death, whichever is deemed more beneficial to the State.

Obviously we are not born into equal stations, equal qualities, and equal conditions.  We are each unique and individual.  But we are equal before the laws of nature, all are subject to the same.  We are born dependent, and may or may not achieve independence, self-reliance, and responsibility for oneself.  The dependent have no claim to anything other than equal treatment before the law.  But if they will not or cannot take responsibility for themselves, they will remain wards of another.

Having loving and caring parents and family is indeed a blessing, and it is an honor to extend that love towards others voluntarily.  But such compassion cannot be legislated or imposed without consent. 

That is the only dilemma: to whom shall I extend my love and compassion?

Close ... "True American citizenship requires taking responsibility for oneself — to be self-governing while respecting the rights of others and expecting them to do the same.  In America, each of us are self-governing."

Fixed it for you, Fred. ;-)

Like Fetterman! (God help us...)

Like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, and NYC?  ;-)

I suppose it depends on the definition of 'altruism.'  Rand mostly was speaking of the conflict between individualism and collectivism.  The individual's motive is 'selfish' — that is to benefit himself and whomever he choses to share the benefits.  The collective's supposed motive is 'altruistic' — that is, what's best for the community as a whole, even at the expense of individual desires and consent.

Reston, your proposal is ungovernable except by centralizing power into hands that will inevitably become corrupt by that power. "Expecting" 'social systems' to serve the people is a dream, not dissimilar from expecting our neighbor to behave a certain way that suits us.

Better to keep the power in our own individual hands, so that each have the opportunity to rise above their circumstances, not 'expect' to be compensated for the efforts of others.  "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."  If that were a key touchstone to the conscience of the people individually, the manifestations would be marvelous without intervention from the state.

Taxes are a scam — if the government can print its own money (it can and does), it has no need of taxes.  Taxes are the way to pass on permanent debt to the masses.  Without taxes, inflation would be the only tax and would effect everyone equally according to their wealth — hence the reason paper money and income taxes, to protect the wealthy, who 9 times out of 10 pay NO taxes, but pass on those burdens to the populace.

The healthcare field has become a protection racket, to keep healthy food and medicines out of the market while cheap processed food and expensive pharmaceuticals are pushed on the populace.  Socialism is the ultimate racketeering dream.  Let it go to hell where it belongs...

We better know a man's true intentions by his actions and the results of those actions.

I agree that the alternative to a free press is worse than its failings, but the mainstream press (CBS, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc.) have been nothing but propaganda since their inception. 

The independent media of today is their sworn enemy, and every effort to impose 'hate speech' and 'misinformation' controls is aimed at shutting down true journalism exposing the widespread racketeering of our supposed representatives.

I do hope Warren that you have managed to see now, decades later, that the war in Iraq was predicated on false evidence (i.e. the presence of weapons of mass destruction) and the control of Iraqi oil — yes, the US military's very first objective was to secure the oil, which they did and still do.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens were killed, if not millions.  Their monetary system of the gold dinar was replaced with paper fiat under the control of the western central banks of the USA and UK.  I still stand by my post above, 16 years after the fact.

Controlling the narrative via censorship and propaganda is integral to keeping a populace weak and under the influence of the powers-that-should-not-be.   But in the end, only outright civilian force can defeat the would-be-rulers.  Perhaps Lee was referring to something along those lines.

Fred, you have not answered the question but merely provided another ad hominem fallacious argument.  Every animal must be able to defend itself against predators — those that cannot get eaten.  This simple fact of life must not be ignored.  Evil must always be addressed by Good, else all eventually succumbs to evil.

Thankfully, the truth destroys lies, light dispels darkness, and love triumphs over hate.  And weapons, in all their forms, in the hands of the citizenry, keeps the insatiable leviathan in check.  That is the American republic, may it forever reign.

I believe the reason for the military is to be able to defend against aggressors.  The word 'peace' can be interpreted multiple ways — it can mean total control of all dissidence (i.e. tyranny) or an absence of war.  War is bad, but is certainly rightful for the defender of liberty, and tyrannical when on the side of the aggressor.

A weak defense is an invitation to powerful aggressors.  That goes for individuals in defense of their rights as well as nations in defense of their country.  With no ability to defend against a powerful state, servitude is guaranteed.

It's true for whoever is provoking war, whether Russia, NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Hamas, US, etc..  Biden's scandals and domestic policy failures aren't even on page 2 of the news... how convenient.

The weapons manufacturers care not who buys their arms — they supply both sides of a conflict.

Yes, Mike!

Have you read the Iraqi Constitution?  It's a bastardization of the US Constitution, without We the People.  It's what the statists wish the US Constitution said, granting all power to the government disguised as protection for the people. 

Jefferson did not support the proposed US Constitution without a Bill of Rights declaring what the government could NOT do.  The same goes for every country that is governed by a Constitution — without a Bill of Rights that cannot be overwritten, servitude is inevitable eventually.

Yes, a reflex like your predictable response to every quote on this blog. ;-)  Are you incapable of independent thought?  The progressive liberals really did a number on you, eh?  I pity the children that attended your schools...