I genuinely appreciate the writing of Bastiat. He is a model of French Rationalism, with all its seriousness, pomp and folly. His jumps in logic are no worse than any other of his ilk; but better in that I must believe there is a true sense of humor behind them. Either that, or he is a delusory idiot! Let us trace the beginnings of Socialism back to Plato. Not really; because we know he was an aristocrat and very much believed in the concept of genetics when it came to social leadership, leaving some considerable room for an exception to the rule. (Republic and Laws) Bastiat is correct that most do confuse Socialism with government; but it is not as big a misconception as that of attributing to Capitalism aspects of Principle. Or, worse, coterminous with the government of a republic.

I see your response format has changed. Interesting; but it feels one is a bit blind without other responses exposed for influence. They are indexed; but not displayed.

The Adams' quote directly above one from King George is a thought provoking comparison. As is that from Madison; but not quite the same extreme. A very nice selection.
   The bases of any revolution are not coincident. It motivations are not its rhetoric.(Cum "espoused principles".) By in large, we must profess a necessity for violence, which is the handmaid of any revolution. Tough maid! As with Che or Tolstoy a revolution is constant. It has its own inertia and is usually a victim of the violence it engenders. In that sense the American Revolution is still in progress as it is a condition of realization, not rebellion. King George should have looked to his own Knavery before considering the inevitable development of America's Navy. By principle, a P. T. Barnum should never be president. A Barnum's knavery (flim flam) is taken for granted, wherein people know they are being taken, and, thus (for whatever reasons) enjoy it. Politics is barnumesque; but government must not be.

My mother's opinion on government and politics was rather simple: "If there is going to be a convention of thieves to which you are allowed to send a representative, would you send the local priest or the best crook you can find and pay him well ?" Even at that, what guarantee do you have this person will actually represent your interests ? The best option you have is the power to fire (vote out) and have in place safeguards which can limit the damage by any one person while in place. Such are the inherent problems of large democracies: they have no choice but to be a representational system. The only other choice is to live in such limited groups where one can afford individual participation. Going back through history, once man left the hunter gatherer group system and stayed in one spot,was sufficiently fed and comfortable, procreated and multiplied, a system of government by mutual consent was necessary which is, in my opinion, an impossibility to maintain without force. People will not agree amongst themselves. People will take advantage and where force does not work, guile possibly might; but force is always the fall back resolution. Thou shalt love one another, or we will kill you. Please, give me a current world political situation which will demonstrate other.

The original 13 colonies were land grants by monarchies which had no justification to do so save the divine right of king or queen. The concept of slavery is ancient; based on the will of one person over another by force alone then justified by the erroneous conclusion that defeat means absolute subjugation. This, reinforced by the arrogant supposition that the person, or group, were defeated because they are inferior in every way as "god" gave man dominion over beasts (and everything else). This is no different than the absolute rule of king or chief. The concept of government by consent of the governed was relatively new in 17th and 18th century Europe; but differs little from the Athenian democracy and the Celtic "Alltogethers " yielding allegiance through mutual consent by presence during the formation of laws agreed to by everyone. (Who happened to be there and were a genetic member of the group.) All those outside the group were not included. Thus the difference is one of concept: one not of me nor the extension of me; but All, whether known to me or not. Thus, slavery is wrong by concept; not political (or religious) decree. Then, far beyond the scope of this letter, comes the question as to whether any political (governmental) bond is not dissolvable (or disaggregated). We are at a crossroads of all humanity in terms of ethnic, national, economic and cultural bounds. The changes which are occurring have far reaching effects in the evolution of our planet and of humanity itself. ( A bit redundant.) The specific decrees espoused in our (U. S.) Declaration of Independence and Constitution / Bill of Rights requires constant review and revision to not only accept / accommodate change but to further realize, if possible, the "intent" of those documents and others which preceded them: Roman / English Common Law... on and on. When we subjugate ourselves to "law" we do so because we agree fully and realize, for the good of ourselves and the world in which we live, we must. We can no longer walk down the road, set up camp and believe our selves to be free from the constraints living with others requires. All arguments to the contrary excepted.

My apologies to Socrates.

Good points all around. When it comes to the history and "theory" of "Law" one would like to know more as to how many of these precedents have been handed down and kept in practice over the millennia. "Natural" law is, partly, a reinvention of Western Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. This as a reaction to the absolute rule of kings which was/is an ongoing seesaw battle between secular and religious power. Every so often Athenian law pops up and is used as an example of democratic, social or peer thought; which, upon examination was a law established by a society where three percent of its numbers were actual citizens to whom the law applied (protected). Everyone else was held to a different standard: none. Remember: people were real property and "strangers" were everyone else. Our (current) laws are written documents established by a small group of designated individuals and, once established, are as gold until such evidence is demonstrated they must be changed. All this stuff about the individual juror exercising his or her conscience in opposition to a laws he or she feels is not "just" - is hooey. I, for one, proclaim my difficulty in judging my fellow man through a court of law, yet make judgments every day in contradiction to my espoused principles. One could say I am "opinionating" not "judging" and excuse my hypocrisy on a turn of phrase. Such phrases often take the lives of others as others sometimes take lives. This, regardless of presented, so-called "facts" or "evidence" however those words may be interpreted or defined. Nothing about the "system" is "perfect"; both must be constantly questioned. Almost as much as the individual must question him or her self.

Compensatory damages awarded by judges and/or juries have been around for thousands of years. IF it is within the authority of a court to levy such which has been by royal decree but also by constitution as evidenced from Ancient Greece onward. Let us re-read those ancient texts upon which these authorities are based.

That our government has a system of checks and balances wherein ultimate power, ostensibly, devolves to the citizenry is at best awkward and slow in resolution. Elements of principle which should be referred to the ballot are not due to their so-called complexity and necessary resolution as "law" requiring expertise; of one sort or another. The supreme court is charged with "interpreting" the Constitution, or determining whether a given law is in compliance with its articles. Those decisions are supposedly couched as a matter of "law" which is framed both in principle and "technically". A major question exists whether the Amendments are an integral part of the Constitution body to be approached in the same substance as its basic articles. In other words: when amending a body of law is that act limited to changing the basic articles or creating additional ones? Where does the 14th amendment fit into the primary articles such that it amends (either adds to or changes the basic elements of) any particular one. No human document (including biblical complications) is free from political interpretation. Man is language (Heidegger) and language is the instrument of political intent. Thus, we "stack" the court. It is not correct, in theory, to do so because the primary charge of any judge is both fairness and impartiality. Once one dons the robe all bias must be excluded from his or her engagement; in theory.

Taking the heart as metaphor and not the seat of reason, nor a pump, it remains "true" that its rate of activation responds to our emotional state that can be a reaction to any situation whether true or not; but we assign that reaction to validity. Which is perfectly reasonable and, from the poetic point of view truth itself. Why not ? As long as we are aware of the difference there is, in my opinion, more benefit than harm in this assignment. All of my emotions correspond to my state of mind; my beliefs at the moment. Which are, very often, momentary. The question remains: Once no longer stimulating are they true, or were they ever ? The responses to Gandhi's quote were varied as those who would celebrate emotion and those who would deny it. Some of those were quite emotional in their denial. Ain''t bad.

Mike (Norwalk) gave a very clear and well considered opinion, In the space available (reasonable for a reply to a quote). This quote opens a vast debate which, like almost all philosophically based opinions, requires a reply far beyond that which a "short" answer can encompass. Therefore, briefly, wherein our given laws does it say we have a "right" to any tangible, physical element? It would take a book to discuss whether we have a "right" to property, whatever that means as "ownership". Urinating on trees will work only to the extent there is sufficient game in the forest other wolves can eat without crossing the "scent line"; or, sufficient females available for mating purposes. I have never heard of females scent marking boundaries. I digress. Logical Positivism has its roots in Parmenides and Zeno, despite his tautological arguments. It is not 20th Century. Moreover, nowhere does Positivism have a "logical" link to morality or ethics and one SHOULD NOT (forgive the caps - emphasis only) link that which we construct as "social" law with what we perceive to be "natural" law. We make both assumptions and assertions based upon our presumptive desires up to the point where something, or someone, proves us wrong. In any "open" society we have no "right" to anything which the general agreements that structure the society allow. Then, who enforces those rights ? These arguments about morality and ethics based upon a set of philosophical premises are largely fallacious and we should be careful in couching our pleas in those terms.

When it comes to providing protection against powers, both foreign and domestic, one can join the national guard or remain in the military reserves until age requires surrender to infirmity. The training and discipline necessary to use modern weaponry requires these organizations for proficiency. That presumes we are a nation which is free from anti-government paranoia wherein a bunch of yahoos run around on the weekend wearing camouflage and sporting M-15s. In a contest where a trained, disciplined military confronts a patchwork group would be like a boxer facing a street thug. No contest. Lets put aside the militaristic aspect and address the question of personal self defense. In a world where guns can be carried openly and retribution both immediate and legal, are duels not far from resurgence ? Will ambush be any less likely? If this fellow from Georgia can make such a claim, can the dame be said for New York City or Madison, Wisconsin ? I, for one, doubt his claims; but would need to understand the overall sociological situation in which they are made before deciding whether those claims are correct, and just, in the abstract. These arguments are all spurious in light of the fact that one has little, or nothing, to do with the other. There are a number of times during a day when I have thought: If I had a gun, I'd shoot your.... I spent 11 years in military service and can hit at what I am aiming. I am not about to carry a weapon based on a feeling from a state of exhaustion or frustration. There may be many responsible gun owners; but the "statistics" (I think) do not bear true that unilateral arms will eliminate aggression by man to man.

Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! If I see a bear, and it sees me there is a justified concern about its hunger or whether it has a cub needing protection as to if it might attack. This is a "just" fear. I do not know, however, if there is justification for me to presume action on my part is required for personal defense. Yet, caution is certainly warranted. This is normal, otherwise, not. Judgment (preceded by perception) is in the mind and heart of an individual.

There is an old saying: If one person makes pee-pee in the river, there is no problem. If, however, a thousand people make pee-pee in the river, you have a problem. An amendment to that saying could be: It depends on whether you live upstream or down. By that we consider one voice, or many, in a society. When is a tower of babel inchoate ? This question of individual rights pales in the face of overwhelming numbers. When we quote people who lived at a time when population density and mechanisms of survival were much different than today, we must ask whether these quotes, which espouse principles we ostensibly cherish, have relevance. I do believe, however, within the fabric of Western thought the opposition of individual concerns as opposed to those of a group has been a defining aspect of this particular culture; and one which will continue to be a factious element if espoused without proper reflection. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and on, are all excellent bases upon which to reflect as long as we recognize them as projections, not reflections of our actuality. Difficult.

Obviously, de Tocqueville was wrong about the force part. The question of principle is not open because there is no specific clause within the constitution which mandates the condition of insolubility; except that little phrase: "in order to form a more perfect union..." That phrase, however, is not "we shall". The word "shall" is used correctly throughout that document; but not in this situation. No formal principle prevented the English from displacing the Dutch in New York; nor the displacement of Indians or Spanish. Whatever gave European royalty the right to usurp land, once they discovered it was inhabited; is beyond me. Oh, I forgot: God. Then, what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder ? Please. We, currently, are a nation because it is in our best economic, and physical, survival interests to be so; nothing more. There are no overriding principles, save high school cheerleading, supporting this integrity. Had things run their course would slavery survived ? Many think not. (What many ? That requires a foot note.) We formed this country through an act of will after almost 20 years of deliberation. (Say 1769 to 1789.) It was not assembled without extensive debate; but is there a reason it should endure in an age of Postmodernism and, now, Internationalism ? Why, after abandoning the gold standard, should we cling to the idea of physical borders and loyalty oaths ?

Was it Jefferson who said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance ? The concept of liberty within a society if defined as individual freedoms in relation (or contrary) to group function has no definite parameters. On my back 40 I can plant what I like providing those 40 acres are exclusively my inviolable territory. Otherwise...What are the limits of your defense?
I am very much afraid these are words, not well defined concepts which are able to be unilaterally enforced by other words.

Reviewing these three quotes presented today has given rise to much commentary and debate that our civil war purportedly resolved: that the union of these states is un-dissolvable. That was the result of a war in which the stronger defeated the weaker; or industry defeated the agrarian. (Premising the basis of all wars is economic, racial equality was not the prime, or even secondary, motivational factor of its commission.) If there is a constitutional basis for the claim that the unity of this country is based on centrality of government, then that which has developed is correct and must prevail. If, however, there is no such definitive a priori then the current, continuing, dissension has merit and should be discussed openly. That is more than a decision for the supreme court, it is a referendum for national vote. Then, will the question for union or separation be resolved; or is it one where those who so choose may go their own way ? Wherein lies freedom and democracy ?

A footnote. I spent three and one-half years in active milittary duty then seven years in the reserves. At no point was I permitted to keep my weapon upon my person or in my barracks unless deployed and on patrol. Otherwise, when on base all weapons were in the armory under .lock and key

Society changes as does the requirements for its stability. The valid needs of survival for one generation does not necessarily apply to those of another. This is the definition of a society based upon laws which surmount individual actions. The conditions of life in Montana, today, are not the same as those in New York City or Chicago; but at what point do, or can, we place them on an equal basis ? Self-defense; hunting; the right (?)of insurrection; what-have-you; are these valid reasons for the keeping and bearing of arms across all sectors of society ? I do not know.

Certainly, knowledge without integrity is dangerous and, potentially, dreadful; but can one have integrity without knowledge ? The word's root is "integral", or tied together, somehow. We must be careful that our assumptions, or experiences, have brought us to correct conclusions upon which our sense (?) of integrity can be based. This, of course, leads to a discussion of ethics and morals which may or may not be essential to the topic of integrity. I do not believe the statement is symmetrical.

How is it we go to sports events and stand, willingly, during our national anthem and proclaim loudly our fundamental values of peace and freedom for all, supposedly under a governmental and legal system which guarantees these elemental aspects of our existence (not "rights") then, almost psychotically, arm ourselves declaring our individuality is the only means of defending those same qualities in defiance of the institutions we created in the first place ? (Ostensibly in opposition to, corrupt, aristocratic European or despotic Asian governments.)
From God on high: Thou shalt not kill ! (Except....) Is it all Torah vs.Talmud ?

Reading Plato, Aristotle or Homer one would think this quality was essential to all other's in human character formation. In a way the major Eastern philosophers (Buddha, etc.) seemed to hold similar. I am unsure whether Christian tenets necessarily revised the definition of courage or not; but my thoughts go to a quote from a more recent group "Capitol Steps" who said:
"You have to be brave in the land of the free, if you believe in the powers that be."...