The UN ensures that there will never be another war that is truly won by any country. It only ensures that there will be perpetual war, besides perpetual poverty, and perpetual enslavement. When you have right and wrong decided by a body that is made up of a collection of mad dictators, fascists, communists, power hungry thieves and various other thugs, what else could you expect.

This is simply pragmatism without principles. There is only right and wrong, justice and injustice and injustice should never be tolerated by anyone with principles. Those who tout an injustice in order to rectify a so-called "greater" injustice are merely perpetrators of retribution and revenge.

The game is rigged. Play at your own risk.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Atlantic ocean and the Sahara desert at the same time, the ocean would be a bog and the Sahara a swamp. That is the result of government "spreading the wealth" and equalizing outcome rather than opportunity.

I am afraid cold turkey is the only way it will ever be done, and that will only happen after the bottle is empty and there's no one left from whom to steal more milk.

As an free individual I am a minority. In fact I am the smallest minority: a minority of one. Of course that is not one of the "protected" minorities. You have to be a mob of many thousands to be protected. "Freedom is Slavery" is something the slave master has always told the slave. The master always shackles the slave for his own good; the slave must be protected from himself after all. Why is it so hard for some people to accept the fact that freedom is freedom?

Neither are you Waff even though you consider yourself an "intellectual" I presume.

I consider Grover Cleveland to be one of the great presidents. He was one of the last who would veto a bill simply because the constitution did not authorize it. In fact he vetoed a great many bills because they were unconstitutional, unlike presidents today who actively promote unconstitutional laws or at the very least depend upon a court to overturn them. The just obligations of the government are specifically stated in the constitution. Any more than that is usurpation and unjust.

Jim and Anon, I am often called as a juror; typically once a year. I take jury nullification very seriously and consider it part of my duty as a juror. I will occasionally take some Supreme Court decisions regarding role of jury nullification with me and leave it on top of the pile of magazines in the jurors' room. They disappear rather quickly of course. I know what justice is, and so does most everyone else. If a law is unjust the juror is the last hope. Considering some of the bills being introduced in the current Congress, I have a feeling we may need to use jury nullification much more frequently in the near future (if juries are even allowed anymore, that is).

When I was a little boy my Grandma would give me fifty cents every Sunday on the way to church to do with as I pleased. She didn't tell me to put it in the collection plate. She didn't tell me to save it. She also taught me not to expect it and to wait patiently for it. It was hers to give and it was mine after she gave it to me. I would put a quarter in the collection plate and save a quarter in my piggy bank when I got home. That was purely my choice and it taught me charity and planning for the future on my own. What lesson would I have learned if Grandma would have shown me fifty cents every Sunday morning, kept it, and then put it in the collection plate for me? I would never have learned the lesson or grown as a human being. I would have been a perpetual child. You don't have to reason very hard to understand why we have so many dependent, childish, irresponsible adults around today do you?

There's certainly not much I can add to this quotation: it is clear, concise, and correct. Thank you for the recommendation, Logan. Durant is now on my reading list.

Some people are so envious they would rather destroy the world than see someone have something they don't have: petulant toddlers who, even though they don't want a toy themselves, will tear it apart rather than see another child enjoy it. Taxes should never be used for policy purposes. They should only be used to fund those government functions that are constitutionally authorized. Any tax taken for any purpose beyond the scope of the constitution is pure theft.

Self described intellectuals are engaging in pretense and self-deluding self-aggrandizement. They typically have an inflated opinion of themselves and apparently don't care that pride goes before the downfall. I have never heard of Einstein calling himself an intellectual, or anyone else who has ever produced anything of value. Most "intellectuals" are academics, cloistered in their protective environment with other "intellectuals" who stroke each others' egos and tell each other how brilliant they are.

Maybe as much blame should go to the people who keep electing these miserable, reject used car salesmen (no offense to honorable used car salesmen who work for a living). We get addicted to the goodies and become lapdogs in exchange, grovelling for a few more crumbs from the well stocked table our politicians dine from and maybe an occasional special treat. Roll over for your masters. We get what we deserve by not holding government to its constitutional limits.

Anon, we have been manipulated into that position. It is pure social engineering designed to put us on the leash the policy maker wants on us. It is not about government "caring" about us, it is about the power to control, to make us dance like a puppet. Tax breaks, deductions, and all of those so-called benefits are like an addictive drug and and the tax man is the dealer. It is very hard to kick the habit, but we must try. The cost of the addiction is the freedom of self determination.

Mike, it is much more important to be a decent human being than a smart one. I find it amazing that so many "smart" people don't realize that.

Some things just need killing.

I have never understood why everyone treats the judiciary with such reverence. They are, after all, just lawyers. Why is it we accept their judgments as if they were the word of God from on high? Remember, there have been and will continue to be flawed decisions and wrong decisions (Dred Scott for instance). The people are the final arbiters of justice if only we the people have the guts to do our duty.

An intellectual has to be neither well educated or intelligent. He only has to think he is better than those around him. I am personally reasonably well educated and I have a respectable IQ, yet I don't consider myself an intellectual since I believe that description to be a pejorative. A racist believes himself to be better than someone else based upon the color of the skin. An intellectual believes himself to be better than someone else based upon the color of the sheepskin hanging on his wall. In fact some of the most intelligent men I have known have had the least formal education. They have had exceptionally sensitive BS meters that could detect a liar a mile away. I work with a great number of people from sailors to mechanics to engineers each with different education and experience. The great majority of them are competent at what they do and self-motivated to do it and I respect them. An intellectual wouldn't.

Only a free exchange is beneficial to everyone. A rich man who has only earned his wealth by free exchange has never done me any harm. In fact, by selling me what I want, I and he both have gained a benefit. That is, we have baked a larger pie. Just because his piece is bigger than mine doesn't mean that I don't enjoy my piece as well. Only envious people are bothered by that. Those rich men who lobby government to steal from me for their own benefit alone have done me harm. Whether by regulation, tax policy, or prohibition when government picks the winner, there must be a loser. The pie stays the same size, government steals my piece, and gives it to the lobbyist.

The tax code takes up ten feet of shelf space and we are well on our way to that infinite number of ways to plunder.

The intellectuals were the eugenicists of the early 20th century, and they still are as a matter of fact. Anyone who thinks they can direct how someone else can or cannot live their life is on that same evil path. It's only a matter of time before they start marching undesirables to the showers.

All I can say to Waffler is: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

People who want a large, powerful, centralized government are essentially masochists. The more they suffer, the greater pleasure they feel. I think they'll soon be in ecstasy.

Each of Waffler's examples exactly prove the point of the quote, just as Logan says. Each of these civilizations were decentralized during their greatest periods of creativity in the fields of architecture, art, and science. The Greek city-states were small, localized government. Rome was a small republic. The greatest Renaissance art was produced by the small city-states of Italy and the rich families who funded them. The Maya, Aztecs, and Inca were each essentially small city-states, sometimes loosely confederated but more often at war with one another. When small government turns into empire, the creativity dies and society goes into decline, and it survives on the produce of its small government ancestors. When empires finally finish squandering what they inherit, they die. Sometimes it is a quick death, sometimes it is a long, lingering, painful death. We'll see what President O'Nero has in store for us.