RBESRQ, I don't think you know what you're talking about. The platonic "form" was a basic epistemological and metaphysical rejection of "substance". Very few "scientists" or "philosophers" actually base their political or legal theory on platonism (i.e. neo-platonism). If you want to actually have a substantial concept of political philosophy's claim of natural law -- look to Aristotle, not Plato.

Revolution ≠ Liberty. Or, rather, this is to say that not all revolutions lead to liberty. On the same note we can also say that Absolute Freedom ≠ Anarchy. Liberty is an inherent right, unalienable at birth. Governments (society and its conventions) have universally trampled on these rights, yet this does not alter or diminish the right to/of liberty. It has been said that "liberty does not rob order, and order does not mock liberty", and reason argues that this must be so. Revolution, however, is becoming any citizen not protected in his/her inherent and unalienable rights.

My all-time favorite, great quote from Spooner!

I've met and talked with Joe Banister, and the guy is as sincere, good natured, and honest as they come. Un-employing 90,000 IRS agents may be the best thing that could currently happen to this country.

Absolutely.

Waffler's creating yet another strawman. I've looked back on the passage he mentions of Locke, and, of course, we find Waffler creating yet another strawman. Brilliant analysis by Locke, as usual.

I don't necessarily like Holmes, but the quote is accurate enough.

An adaptation on the Aristotelian notion of the law of non-contradiction that was later adopted by Aquinas as an axiom of natural law.

Well, then, I suppose I desire to be a slave to the truth?

Is Waffler speaking regarding his intricate knowledge of the philosophy of the Enlightenment (Locke - Kant), or his own self-perceived illumination?

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Eh, Waffy boy, a "non-biblical writer" means that the founders quoted more from the Bible than any other source, not that Locke didn't quote from the Bible -- Apparently you haven't read Locke's Two Treatises on Government or his Essay on Human Understanding (that quotes quite extensively from the Bible). It is arguable whether the founders quote more from Locke than from Montesquieu, but these were, respectively, the second and third most quoted 'non-biblical writers' of the founding fathers. Great quote by the way.

RBESRQ, your life is worthless. Good observation, however, by Kant, in response to Hume.

Excellent observation.

Great quote -- too bad it's not followed nowadays. Even the ballot box isn't the revolution we once considered it. "Man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years" (Spooner).

Lex injusta non est lex.

Sure, it's a free country, but that doesn't negate our own freedom to criticize the people's lack of attention to their higher social moral obligations for populist drivel and tabloids. People, in return, can ignore or react to the criticism - that is their freedom as well. The Greeks were said to have encouraged sporting events to focus male energy somewhere outside the body politic, so that politicians wouldn't necessarily bear the full light of public scrutiny. If a student procrastinates their paper beyond the due date because they were busy applying themselves to the latest gossip (friends, movies, tabloids, or entertainment venues), this does not change the outcome of using their freedom to choose something other than their obligation of studying for or writing the paper. They fail, and that is the consequence of their freedom. Today, the majority of Americans know more about Britney Spears than they know their representative's voting record. This is arguably neither good nor bad -- they simply have used their freedom and time to explore hobbies and interests away from the body politic. If the American political body fails to ensure liberty and freedom to the people, then it is the people's fault -- in a Constitutional Republic -- to not have seen, addressed, and fixed the problem early on because they were using their freedom to explore other opportunities.

It's like poetry to the soul. Who needs penumbra or hybrid rights, when we have the 9th and 10th Amendments.

De Tocqueville left much to be desired in a lot of his writings and foundational thinking (he being influenced more by the French philosophies than by the foundational and established English philosophies that this country was built); however, this is great.

Liberty and freedom are intrinsic, but its application within society is a daily fight.

Ah, the battle cry of most despotic governments; however, in the United States "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Liberty is a right, but it's individual application within society is a daily fight.

Celebrate your freedom this 4th of July, we may not have many more to celebrate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I&feature=related

The quote is often attributed to either Jefferson or Thomas Paine, but it is actually Thoreau that said it in his work "Civil Disobedience"... an excellent read, btw... http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html

The quote is accurate enough, it's just that people's understandings have so thoroughly changed over even the last 50 years that the prostitution of our language has changed societal thought. Our Universities and schools do not teach the old definitions or understandings, because they are struggling to even keep up with helping describe how things currently operate. It is only ignorance that believes that such current understandings have been in place even over the last 50 years -- let alone the last "276 years". The "Pledge of Allegiance" is wrong, insomuch as it states "One nation... indivisible" -- at least to the foundational ideas of the foundation of our government. The Pledge, however, is perfectly in line with current social standards of thought, in that we believe we're just one big "state", "entity", or "nation" and that the States themselves are just glorified territories under the all-powerful central sovereign. This current understanding flies in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments, but who really reads those anyway?