Collective force has been the engine of civilization. 'Force', like a weapon, can be used for good or ill. But power unchecked invariably goes too far. Despotism is a centralized power structure -- Venezuela is a perfect example. The American republican form of government kept power distributed (it did not redistribute it) so that the President (and Washington DC) could not take over the USA.

The adage “Whoever wears the shoe knows best where it pinches” is more likely an individualist maxim rather than democratic. If I already know where the shoe pinches, what do I need anyone else's vote for? In a democracy, after casting your vote for your shoe size, you are issued the shoe size of the majority. I suppose democracy is supposed to pinch everyone equally, but at the least, no one may be NOT pinched because that would be unfair to everyone else. Living by the whim of the group is democracy.

David, are you saying that I cannot put myself in order? Who can? Will YOU bring order to my life? Or some 'authority?' The church and community cannot bring order to my life, only I can choose to act in harmony or in opposition -- and I am responsible ultimately, as I will have to bear the consequences of my actions whether coerced or not. If I do not put myself in order, someone else will try!

"For God turned clay into men, while the absolute despot turns men into clay." Brilliant! ;-)

Frankly, I could never understand the desire to command others, make them follow, it's always felt like a power-trip to me -- I don't like it, and I don't treat people that way. On the flip side I could not understand the blind followers either. Sure there may be a necessity of exercising power over others, but deriving pleasure from it is the point -- it's a turn-on for some.

I like "the absence of force as a prospective instrument of decision making." It's a tall order but isn't it the ideal?

Ron, I like "It is not the absence of force but the presence of peace." ;-)

My primary beef with the 'compassionate' progressives is not with their objects of compassion, many of which I share, but with the means to their end. How much compassion do those earmarked for service deserve? And who says? Cannot a liberal understand this simple logic?

Laws that require my charity, service, obedience upon threat of being thrown to the wolves (lawyers & felons) as well as taking away access to my life's work, are hardly compassionate. And follow the money, the bureaucrats and their bosses take the lion's share. Paying protection money is as popular a racket as ever -- who says crime doesn't pay?

Say that today publicly, and the powers-that-should-not-be and their armies of dependents will trample you down.

The challenge is to empower without indenturing, to inspire without threat. How do you keep a free man from voluntarily making himself a slave? Once indebted, his labor is added to the pool of indentured to rule the rest -- how does communism end? Slaves don't demand freedom, they demand equal slavery for all.

Prohibition of anything by a group upon the rest is the beginning of the slippery slope to authoritarianism. Freedom means just that -- not freedom except drinking, cursing, gambling, sex, food, and generally spending money on whatever one pleases. The do-gooders become the evil-doers for the common good. I don't see this dynamic ever going away, it is something the free man has to deal with. Freedom isn't free, it has a cost and requires some work. Freedom is not an 'end' it is the 'way.'

The truth shall set you free. ;-)

As good as it gets.

Ron, you make a good point about 'paternalism.' To have a 'patron' is still a common cultural aspect of the Americas. In Latin America, the culture is built upon the various 'patrons' who possess the land and house families on site as laborers, often for generations. Like feudalistic Europe in its day. In the US, there were a couple differences to prevent this perpetual dependency upon patronage. First and foremost, an American could own land free of liens and encumbrances -- this was essentially unheard of in England and Europe. He did not have to be a perpetual tenant of his home. Secondly, private enterprise and trade allowed the American the fruits of his labor without claims from his patron.

I've spent time in many 3rd world nations. Control of the land, labors and trade keeps the common people indentured. A culture of paternalism becomes necessary for survival. That's another reason to restrict the number of immigrants requesting 'patronage' from the US -- do they have the mindset for Liberty and Responsibility? Or are they looking for another patron?

Frankly I am shocked at the number of immigrants who immediately begin living off government welfare! SO many thousands of talented people trying to immigrate legally, taking years and money to process, while hoards of 3rd world immigrants are pouring through the borders and latching on to the government teat. It seems to me that like the money supply, the powers-that-be are trying to dilute the American culture with paternalism until the free American spirit is quashed. It's not going to happen without a fight.

Face it, Antifa is a communist movement along with the Black Lives Matter association and others with it. Their demands are the same as the Leninists and Maoists, victimhood and entitlement are their rallying cry, and thuggery their creed. I do agree that the US government has become de facto fascist, thanks to FDR and the New Deal. However, the answer to that corruption is not stricter socialism, but a return to classic Liberalism in which the citizen is supreme and its government a servant, not the other way around.

Such are the pillars of a Constitution -- no words to twist here. ;-)

On the Statism vs Liberalism scale, Whigs were the Libertarians and Tories were the Royalists (i.e. Statists -- the head of state is supreme), Republicans are essentially 'classic Liberals' and Federalists are Statists, Aristocrats were essentially the wealthy and powerful protecting centralized power and Democrats were the common man en masse, free and un-indentured -- classic Liberalism at the time of the America's founding.

Today's parties are predominantly Statist, throughout the world. Some countries only have one party, and everyone must be in it -- can you guess which type it is?

Republicanism and Liberalism have both been corrupted to mean their opposites. Where are the TRUE Republicans? Where are the TRUE Liberals? America's tryst with Statism for the promises of power have corrupted dialogue itself.

Funny how everyone believes their party is of the 2nd type. Once power corrupts, the 1st type becomes the 2nd type. Collective power is the engine of civilization -- it is the wildest of beasts -- the taming of which every ruler considers his duty. Great towers, great walls, great conquests, highways and skyways -- the rulers command them all and all who use them. The ruler, too, believes he is of the 2nd type. ;-)

Morality is often the excuse for immoral acts. The intent is the same: to induce FEAR, to intimidate. Note that the 'enemy' defines morality differently -- their war is also a 'holy' war.

John has a point. The thousand alphabet agencies created by the central government cannot be reigned in from imposing regulations (i.e. ruling) arbitrarily with little to no oversight. Follow the money stream and the real bosses turn out to be not the government. He who has the gold makes the rules -- a debtor nation is therefore a ruled nation. And it is done via all the agencies. The last dozen presidents were figureheads chosen by the globalist 'agencies' that make the rules. Trump was not their pick. And as we can see, the game has been fixed for a long time -- the right and the left are of the same fraternity, they both serve the real rulers, the ones that funnel them money and power.

Reform must come from within. These alphabet agencies are dug in tight, nothing short of rooting them out altogether may be required. Either the hearts and minds of those in government will return to America and we see a real 'transformation' or they will have to be rooted out. Trump is going to need a LOT of allies inside.

The very definition of 'jurisdiction.' Keeping 'authorities' in their box is the very purpose of checks and balances.

For 'Electile Disfunction' ...

In time, the people will come to learn what they have begun to learn with the media's "fake news" -- "fake government." Fake authority under the color of law (fake laws) using fake money to buy real power. We say 'unconstitutional' and that means 'fake.'

The IRS is what's left of the Bureau of Revenue formed to enforce Prohibition. When repealed, they had to find somewhere to go, even without any authority. Incorporated in federal territory, Puerto Rico, the IRS is not a government institution. Dig deeper and you will see it is nothing but a confidence scheme. The price for giving the Federal Reserve all the citizen's money (gold) in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes was that an income tax would have to be imposed to cover the interest payments on the new money -- because every dollar 'bill' is a dollar 'owed' and interest is being paid for it somewhere by someone. Essentially we 'rent' our money for the privilege of creating it out of nothing more than our promise to pay it back in the future - but pay it back with what, though...

Hence the natural distribution of power with a republican form of government. Note that 'wealth redistribution' is in effect 'power centralization' -- wealth is being drawn from all quarters to the center which will be spent for even more power. A republican form of government keeps power in each individual's hands, thus keeping power from concentrating into a few hands. That is real diversity, real wealth distribution (not redistribution), real prosperity, real empowerment.

Um, Mr Beans. there are at least 7 federal cases under US v. Williams. I don't want to do homework assigned by people who won't put any effort into explaining themselves...

Robert, I do not think you are a communist, I am saying that you are espousing communism. Your solutions are collectivist in nature -- it is still more of the same 'white knight savior' stuff. My responses take all your other posts into consideration as well. You have stated you supported Castro, Chavez, socialism in France, 'progressive liberalism' in America, taxing the 'rich' to feed the poor, ... what have I missed, this is the same old stuff. You espouse socialist rhetoric as the reasons for your policies -- this would be fine if they were to remain your policies and not put into law. What about respecting others' 'policies'?

Victimhood, poor-me/them attitude, is a rallying cry for mobs. I wish to empower individuals to 'progress', to produce, to shine -- to make a difference, yes? NOT now that I am awakened to 'follow the leader' with the grand plan. This is the primary complaint about the old Church -- they answered the question 'who am I and why am I here?' for me. You do the same whenever you play the blame game for the poor Venezuelans or gay students.

Like it or not, every single person is responsible for getting themselves out of the mess they are in. Thankfully there are many people willing to help. But when helping people becomes a career, the 'helpers' then are in constant need of people in need of help. Hence ministers, doctors, lawyers, police, psychologists and magistrates. The problem becomes obvious as power protects itself, and problems are created in order to keep the 'security/insurance' game going.

Empower people, don't just get them riled up pointing the finger at a common enemy. I suggest you consider your own words, as you do appear to be on the fence with regards to Self-realization.

Good lord, Robert, I can't help being to the 'right' of your leftist arguments. Look, once you tear down religion, the real charity that was there is now compelled to give to the state -- and not voluntarily as before. The wealthy have been and continue to be the benefactors of the causes they value. I am quite sick and tired of the implication that free and responsible people do not care about anybody else -- nonsense!! What you advocate is to FORCE the 'wealthy' (and later everyone) to give to YOUR charities. You advocate laws that compel people to give up their power -- even the majority of it. THAT is socialism, communism, fascism, but NOT liberalism. Liberty fosters personal power. Either you are for liberty and the responsibility that comes with it or you are not. I think not.

Again, Mick, it is not due to Friedman's economic policy, but Keynes' debt-as-currency system. Every single British pound note is an IOU for real money (not paper) -- I believe a 'pound' used to represent one pound of sterling silver. It sure would be great to be able to trade that pound note for a pound of silver, wouldn't it! But alas, 'money' is not money any more, it is debt. Every pound in circulation has been borrowed by someone -- the banks do not 'lend' money, they create it by extending 'credit.'

Here's the thing, with this system (since 1913), money is now debt. So, the more money you acquire, the more debt you are holding. Don't hold it too long or it will become worthless because more currency keeps getting issued thus deflating the value of the existing currency.

This system GUARANTEES bankruptcies -- regulation is merely directing the hot potato to the mark -- usually a country with very poor spending/borrowing practices or someone to destroy or enslave.

The common man suffers most with this system. His labors are exchanged for water in a leaky vase. Everyone is in debt, no one really owns anything outright, just recognized as liable for paying taxes on it. We are essentially 'renting life' with the powers-that-be as our perpetual landlord.