Broadly stated with non-specific implications which can be applied as seen fit by anyone who is determined to commit an act of civil disobedience whether soundly grounded in rational action or not. I am reminded of Mark Rudd screaming explicatives  in the name of free speech. Yes, you have the right to swear vociferously into the ether without cause; but the words are still crude, offensive and applied uselessly. Unless you just want to show mommy and daddy what a big boy you are. Allow me to assert, after 11 years of service under arms to this country, had I displayed such baseless defiance the Marine Corps would have kicked me out with less than a shrug. Then, exercising my citizen rights, I could have stolen a soap box, stood on a street corner and proclaimed my defiance to the world; but not as a Marine. Got It ?!

For 11 years I served "under arms" in the so-called defense of this country. My military specialty and rank aside: EVERY marine is a rifleman. EVERY marine qualifies once a year with the standard issue weapon (rifle) and whatever other weapon his specialty requires. (Those are individual weapons about which I speak.) In my subsequent experience the police forces of this country are NOT sufficiently trained to use weaponry. The "average gun owner" (I care little about what he/she thinks of him/her self.) is not qualified in the sense that he/she lacks the discretionary discipline to own, and use a weapon of deadly force. ARROGANCE COMPOUNDED BY FEAR AND IGNORANCE YIELDS MINDLESS SELF RIGHTOUS ANGER LEADING TO UNJUSTIFIED DEATHS.

Judging from the extensive commentary one can see the extent of this subject's importance. I can generally agree with the premise of the writer's opinion. I do not however take it to the point of paranoia wherein those in "power" conspire to deny the "po-folk de ri to de edumucation". It has been my experience, as a so-called educator, that the vast majority of people want only sufficient education to get by at minimum effort. What is wrong with that ? No one can teach desire, curiosity or intellect. IQ is not equally distributed across humankind. Certain of us have more brain power than others. Certain of us have more physical dexterity than others. Certain of us are more "talented" in one area and "vive la diffreance" It simply goes to prove that none of us are completely self sufficient and we need each other to survive. Does it come as a shock there is a difference between intellect and wisdom ? Then the question of "common" wisdom versus derived or experiential wisdom as opposed to... Common public education cannot touch on most of these human growth and development aspects for both economic and social reasons. Those social reasons have to do with the separation of church and state or the required impartiality of state values (non-values) in light of a so-called impartial, diverse, society. We are stuck, despite ourselves and those of us who bewail the lack of ideal, individual educational excellence are in the wrong. Pursue that for yourselves and others of like kind; then be generous to all you meet and work with expecting nothing but basic production requirements common to all. Stop whining about human nature and quit kissing your self-congratulatory brain.

What a diverse response. Here is mine. Assuming the average citizen has the requisite training and discipline to effectively defend him or her self or (in the case of a natural or human caused emergency) and assuming each individual has the maturity (emotional balance) to act in a defensive posture only, this proposition may have some validity. Back in the bad old days such skills were necessary for survival; both of individuals and groups. Is such training necessary today, considering both the size and diversity of our population. I ask people to read, or re-read Plato's Republic (ca 350 BCE) and see what he had to say about defense of the state. Theoretical ? Yes; but isn't it all theory until put into practice and then discovered where the mistakes are between theory and the reality of human / nature interaction.

Everyman ! In the Shakespearian sense, is the self righteous pose of journalism. Since man has been writing, and presumably prior to that event, those without power have been mocking, criticizing and pseudo-praising the powerful and social elite. Assuming society reached the stage where there was some form of social hierarchy. Critical journalism does not so much write the truth as mock lies and, as it must express such mockery in terms accessible to the lower, or lowest, common social denominator the writing itself is usually not very good. It is interesting to note: Shakespeare has been one of the few social commentators who walked the line between common opinion and great writing. So let us not laud the freedom of the press to the point where they tell people not so much what they need to hear; but what they want to hear through "pseudographia".

I fail to understand the context or extent of this quote. It seems in direct conflict with certain Jeffersonian precepts, or those preceding him, who advocated for individual rights in preference to collective mandates. If a constitution is an agreement between members of a society who frame a set of rules implementing precepts, then any disagreement must be with the precepts themselves or the methodology / rules of their implementation. The precepts of any constitution are in its preamble; the organization structure and its powers and in the body and its methods of implementation in the rules. Which can also be in the constitution's body or set as addenda. Any or al of these elements are subject to revision, or deletion, as the document is an agreement between people. Unless someone is to claim divine origin; that is a different matter....

A far too subtle concept for most of those in government to grasp much less put into operation. They can be devious, even supremely manipulative, using human desire and greed against the populace's own; but that expression is not the same as "you voted for them, what they do is your fault." Or, be careful what your ask for, you just might get it.

One of the most complicated assertions I have read. The subsistence farmer is free to grow only that which his animals and family can eat plus those in his immediate community which depend upon his crops and milk from his cows, etc. Across history, individual husbandry has been marginal at best. Not all soils nor all climates support all crops. Anything beyond subsistence is business and any opportunities which a business can afford are based upon the conditions under which those opportunities present themselves. The definition of a market implies community. All inter-communal markets require regulation. (?) The definition of a community changes with its boundaries then the capacity to defend those boundaries. Hence, mutual defense, hence taxes, hence government. (Supported, rationalized, by religion or some convoluted mix thereof.) I am presuming those who read these quotes have a general grasp of the historical aspects social "growth" has represented;; wherein interpretations of "principles" have lead to history's particulars. The point of this response is vague as the context out of which the quote was taken; for which apologies are in order. Wherefore, nationalism ? Under what guise ?

That, is scary; but seen in hindsight, understandable from a historical perspective. The parallel of altruism being the garb of totalitarianism has held true. Proceeding on principle ignores the necessity (ability) to change (adapt). Reality, in multiplicity is cacophonous. A chorus of individuals is an oxymoron. Socialism requires as much subjugation of individuality as a dictatorship. Please, do not impose upon me your ideological resolve.

History has shown that violence affects no real change in social /economic inequalities and have, generally failed in their purported objectives. This is because those espoused objectives have been, largely, false. Simply making slavery illegal did nothing to change the minds and hearts of those who willingly enslaved others. Throughout history slavery has been a fact of life. I beat you up; kill all those of your kind who can present any possibility of mounting resistance to my domination then enslave all others, whom I can, without possibility of gaining a citizen status. The Romans gave that opportunity. it ultimately, coupled with their own degeneracy led to their destruction. Which came first? Moral reasons aside.

One of my favorite cartoons is the Wizard of Id. In one segment the little king encountered the bard sitting on a rock, reading. The king commented that the bard always had his nose in a book and, that by doing so, he would never be a leader of men. After the king departed, the bard commented: Nor a follower. In Exodus, 23, 2; the Hebrew (G)god counseled Moses that His people shall: ... not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment. (King James version.)
After all that it is true, and best, to keep your own counsel; but perhaps it is more important to listen and learn to discriminate between wise and deceitful (or foolish) counsel by others. It ain't easy.

From the Greeks, in the 7th C, BCE, plus or minus, the idea of a completely objective, impartial standard by which one can compare, hence judge, the nature and value of a world external to our emotional, subjective feelings has been the core of Western Civilization and its "science". That includes the rationalization of its primary God. The 20th C, CE, largely changed that concept; but not the desire for its attainment. We call that desire: truth. In between these rationalized truths there is doubt. It is in the state of doubt the objective standard is framed. Truth depends upon doubt for its realization; but not doubt based in cynicism. Whether doubt can ever be made an algorithm is questionable; but it does partake of method, subject to adjustment by comparative analogy. Analogy ? If this smacks of Descartes by way of Plato (cum Socrates) it should.

IF government is a reflection of the people's will and taxes are a common fund for cooperative development and maintenance across a nation, then funds for disaster relief are an appropriate use of public monies. We have seen demonstrated in disaster relief both magnanimity and exploitation occur, simultaneously. Public funds have been both misapplied and malappropriated. That is called human nature and can only be guarded against, like devotion to liberty, by eternal vigilance. It is sickly humorous; but necessary, to have a certain portion of charitable funds be dedicated to assurance of their purported use. Charitable funding by government is viable only if it is mandated by the constituents of that government. Otherwise: let 'em eat cake.

Toleration Or Tolerance - ENGLISH FORUMS
www.englishforums.com › Forums › alt.usage.english
Nov 24, 2003 · The difference is that "tolerance" is the action or process of exhibiting the referenced attitude; "toleration" is the result of that action or process.
My apologies. Footnote.

There was a famous statement: "Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let a thousand thoughts contend." What happened there ?

I must refer the reader to Plato's Republic, and to other dialogues, as to his opinion about the young and their necessary guidance; but moreover the responsibility parents owe to teach, set the example, from which the young have the obligation to learn. Really ? Who is teaching what to whom in this tug of war ? Perhaps the analogy from the Rubiyat (sp) of the bow and arrow as the blind archer and passive bow lets loose the dumb arrow....All I can say is: If procreation was a rational act, the human race would have been extinct long ago.

"When I think of all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all." Paul Simon.
The opinions above seem almost unanimous in vilifying our public education system. Of this no one doubts its entrenched dedication to mediocrity and blind obedience to the state. A good friend once said: "The only hope for American salvation is, directly under Old Glory waving proudly, in the wind is a second flag; bearing a purple field with yellow letters proclaiming: HORSESH**!" Enduring cynicism with an equal belief in human dignity and independent equality has also been bread into the American character. We all love a parade, with an eye toward dispersion.

As a college freshman sitting in that first general history lecture with 200 other bleary-eyed students at 8 am the question of what we were supposed to learn from this sort of teaching crossed my mind. I asked that question of an obviously disinterested professor who said: "This course is not intended to teach anything. College is not intended to teach. The techniques of learning (critical reading, analytical thinking, perfunctory skills in math) are all supposed to have been taught to you before coming here. These courses are about the difference between facts and opinions which you, as a student, must determine for yourself those which you wish to accept or reject. You have before you a professor in title only. I am but a more experienced student whose research is offered for your consideration. Your due diligence is expected through your response and consideration of my and hundreds of others throughout recorded time. Failing to consider and respond, you will fail; as a student and a person.
What is the text of this course ? Everything which has been written about the course of events in human history. What is the subject of this course ? The sorting of probability from opinion. History is a likely story."

If the context of this quote was not connected to (what I think may be) a perverse interpretation of the Second Amendment I would find it more palatable.

Many years ago, as a young architect, I asked the question: What is the fundamental criterion of professionalism? The answer? Judgment! Which I interpreted as the ability to determine right action. Professionals are called upon to make decisions which effect the lives of people. Thus the rationale for licensing is to place the responsibility upon those who profess for the life,health and safety of the general public. Although the laws which bind us are primary and apply to all involved in any pursuit which involves the public, judgment for interpretation and application of the principles behind those laws is the first responsibility of a professional.
The germane point as to free speech comes into that judgment required of each person to determine (interpret) the truth of that which is said by another. That "truth" may not always be comforting; but its application and relevance remains for the individual to determine. Caveat Emptor applies. As I have a legal, ethical and moral responsibility to put the welfare of the general public before my personal opinion is expressed; so the right of free speech brings with it the obligation of considered utterance. As an old Chinese proverb goes: "Please be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear."

At the risk of contradicting so august an individual: it must be pointed out the greatest scientific and artistic advances in mankind's dubious course have been under the heels of benign despots; but it is true that centralized governments, pretentiously playing at democracy, have generally suppressed individual vision and exercise. Then, no more so than have tyrants and theocracies.

I fail to understand the premise behind this assertion unless it is in relation to a society where there is no common measure of agreement among its members: A "Law" (in the abstract). IF we refer (defer) to the basic Hebraic commandments as a measure of common conduct between members of a society and IF we agree those elements are mutually composed, not imposed, then the requisite of mandatory self protection does not hold. IF, however, we allow the premise those "laws" are in fact abstract (conceptual only) the premise holds.

Plato had a poor opinion of every governmental form except his made up, hand raised, spoon fed, cast/class system which I doubt any one of us would be comfortable living under. I say: doubt. What I do know is, your selection of quotes are very partial to the catch words: individual and minority. These are presented, unless I am misreading your selections, in a light wherein "minority" is presented as the oppressed class and "individual" as the sole harbinger of "truth" which shall set us free. Forgive me; but throughout history (as today) power has been, and is being, held by a "minority" and the mythic "individual" voice echoes across a world largely to no effect; as long as the vast majority has the minimum amount of leisure and purchase power to stay in their comfort zone. Political success has little to do with ideology and more with affording the middling opportunity to attain that imagined comfort and security so dear to the "average" person. The rest is left to TV, Cellphones and, upon reaching a certain age, religion. I'll stop there. Thank you for listening.

The concept of populist government is a myth perpetuated by those in power (or seeking power) to placate those whom they would enslave. Authority is not necessarily power; but usually results in the same. The body of our Constitution outlines governmental authority, then, through its amendments, outlines the civil rights of the governed. How could it be other? One does not establish a government without its criteria to govern. Our founders could not have envisioned a nation of the size and complexity we have become. I am convinced even the federalists, at that time, saw only 13 colonies united within the parameters of common cause; not blended unanimity. There is a scalar limit to that which can be organized and managed effectively and efficiently; but inefficiency does not, necessarily, negate principle. Stupidity can be forgiven and courses corrected; provided the helm is awake and the navigator(s) reasonably competent. However, even if the principles are clear and the goal explicit 2 or more navigators invites operational chaos. Such is democracy, in all its forms. I would not want to live under his proposed structure; but Plato was not wrong in his analysis. To summarize: Our Jeffersonian / Hamiltonian schism has been with us from the beginning as a near fact of human society. It is not likely to homogenize without agitation nor remain so when let to rest.

A statement about individual expression in contrast with one that reflects palatable conformity with popular or political acceptability enforced by social standards is most definitely not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, whoever occupies the seat of power usually does so reinforcing the overriding moral myths which characterize a given society at a given time. This, then, becomes the official story doled out in whatever educational system instituted to perpetuate that (those) myths. Most people want to, simultaneously, blend in and stand out: to be the perfect example of everybody else; not divergent individuals. I say, most people. The work of Michelangelo epitomized the anthropomorphic projections of the newly endowed middle class of his day, running afoul, somewhat, of the more conservative clergy. The objections were not too strong; we still see his work. Many more "individualistic" artists suffered the ultimate price for their singularity: they were ignored. Those who cry singularity very often are disguising their conformity with a false protestation; or, screaming one thing and selling another. It is up to the individual, who apprehends that which is expressed, to evaluate its value (truth ?) for him or her self. My mother had a saying: "If you believe all you read, you'll eat all you see."