"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit..." ?

Very well said, Mike...

A great quote showing the difference between the foundation of our Republic and differentiation from a Democracy. The Bill of Rights did not "create" any rights, it simply listed the rights that the individual held inalienably by right of existence. Yes, Congress can technically make a "law" saying that gravity doesn't actually exist, but this wouldn't preclude or magically stop gravity from working; on the same principle Congress can technically make a "law" overriding the Bill of Rights, but this does not naturally or magically stop the inherent and natural rights as they are listed.

Any system that doesn't allow for property free-and-clear is no system that has de jure "law".

With the death of allodial freehold (politically and within the social thought), Locke's statement is completely misunderstood...

Interesting, A.WOODS, that you would quote a self-proclaimed socialist (and Fabian Socialist, until he left them because he wanted a more radical form of socialism) to base your opinion on. Freedom exists naturally and is a free gift of birth, but the defense of the outward manifestation of freedom is necessary. You cannot FORCE freedom into existence, this is absurd. This is like saying that we can FORCE gravity from existing! Good luck with that.

One of Locke's main principles that made him such a revolutionary thinker is that he argued that man never abdicates his rights within a society, but merely delegates to a select group of men certain enumerated "duties" wherein this small group of men could act. "Abdicate" here is the key word, because it assumes that the people never "give up" anything whatsoever to government... and that once government has overstepped their bounds from the duties wherein the people could actually give them power, then all power returns to the people individually. Locke argued this in the face of Hobbes; Hobbes argued that man "gave up" his rights to government, and that once "given up" they could not be assumed except for wherein government would grant them back. This "license" that Hobbes built his political theory on was rejected by Locke who said that government had no natural or other ability to "license" anything whatsoever -- because government was not a separate institution from the people, but was in fact the people themselves. The masses could not do anything over the minority that one single individual could not do over another single individual.

Amen, and Amen. I guess Waffler just about said it all: "A correct understanding of Democracy and what I was taught in school is that..." Ah, yes. It all makes sense now. Jefferson is correct, as were all the Founders who hated and despised Democracy; a Republican form of Government that adhered to Natural Law is the best form of government yet created. It is sad that -- through revisionism -- we have changed the original meaning of words (as spoken by our Founders) to contort to new convoluted theories.

Absolutely.

Whether Murrow was an idiot or not does not detract from the statement (ad hominem). Dissent against the Bush Admin was anything but "un-American," just like dissent from the Obama Admin is anything but "racist". It's amazing how a country of supposed "grown ups" are so amazingly childish.

Sounds like the paradigm we find ourselves in today of reversed slavery.

Such as the inability of ignorant people to not study their history and understand the dichotomy between "Democracies" and "Republics". Deny the foundation of American political thought, but do not rewrite it.

Of all the things I disagree with Rand on, this is actually spot on... Great quote.

I understand the concept of a majority system and the purported idea that "all mens votes taken together equal to the best extent possible the will of most men". My argument is the "will" of "most men". Is man basically a "good" or "bad" creation? "Righteous" or "evil"? Yes, if all men were good all of the time, then majoritism would have little problems; however, on that train of logic, if all men were good all of the time, then Monarchy is just as good as any majority-system. How can you keep a majority-system from persecuting the minority? It is proven over, and over, and over again that government's established solely on the majority's consent have obliterated into tyrannical dictatorships of an elitist few. However, if you seek to establish a government where the power of government is vested in the people, a majority-only system of government is quite inadequate, because the "will of most men" is often to subvert the expression of liberty from the fewer in numbers. This is the inherently flawed problem of majority-only systems, and the reason even Aristotle came out with his political theory of defaming Democracies, and his arguments for Republics. If you want a system of government where the power is vested in the people (but where the minority is safe from the frenzy of the masses) -- and where the masses will not be controlled by the minority -- then you must establish the government on a codex of laws that exist independently of the majority OR the minority; a codex of laws wherein both must adhere to and upon which each must check and admonish themselves against. If the understanding of this this codex of laws is an arbitrary creation of the masses, then the masses have any legitimate action to take it away. This is why our Founders established the codex of laws to be the "Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God". These were laws that the majority did not create and which they cannot overrule. The minority is powerless against these laws as well. The business of government may be conducted according to a majority's consent, but only when checked by natural law. Otherwise, all laws become a mere artificial and arbitrary creation of confusion and tyranny.

Thoreau, one of my literary heroes. I disagree with a few of his minor premises in Civil Disobedience and Walden, but over-all his works are a masterpiece of American enlightenment. To see government as the artificial creation of man, and not a creation of nature and of the Creator is a perception few men anymore adhere to. His abolitionist views stemmed from the inner-morality/code of the individual, and not from the contemporary thought of the movement of the masses.

Waffler is at it again. After his failed attempts to prove his point (after these many years), he's now moved on to trying to use the Amendment process and Abraham Lincoln as his scape-goat -- all while calling the founders Aristocrats. The quote is dead on, and within it shows the true thread of liberty. How can you operate a government where the power is within the people, but the minority and individual is protected? You establish a government where the majority must abide by a law they did not create -- a law that is absolute and existed before the consciousness of the masses: Natural Law. When government's premise of legitimacy is merely majoritism, no minority is safe -- no individual may enjoy the protection of his Creator given inalienable rights against the frenzied onslaught of the masses.

All men are created equal, but Democracy destroys this concept by its very premise of majoritism: The minority is screwed every time when there is no other foundation for legitimacy other than majority vote. The founders were not considered "conservative" in their day, they were "liberal" (but not by today's definition). You STILL side-skirt the issue (I repeat): "If Democracies and Republics are one and the same thing -- as you have continuously blathered -- why does every Founding Father, political theorist, and political philosopher previous to the twentieth century always draw a clear and distinct line between the two forms of government? Why did Machiavelli and Madison speak extensively on the difference if there was no difference at all? Why did George Washington state that he would rather a Monarchy before a Democracy, but he praised Republics above all? Why did John Adams hate Democracy and praise Republics? Why does history show that Democracies never last longer than 200 years, but Republics last over 500 years? If you're right, how do you prove the majority to be wrong?" The minority cannot dictate the course of action in a Republic, but that does not mean it is powerless to be a slave to the majority. As David Bruton (the EU Ambassador to the United States stated), the only possible way of creating any safety for the minority within a TRUE Democracy is to make everything unanimous vote; otherwise, the minority has no rights against the majority. Nice quote from Shakespeare, btw -- but it's not accurate. And, though posed to Mike, I must have to ask: Where is a list of the "majorities priviledge" enumerated? Where is that written? Where does the majority get "priviledge"? The failure of our Republic to protect the environment, slaves, and any other infringement of life, liberty, or property was not an intrinsic flaw, but a failure to even comprehend and understand the principles of a Republic as based on natural law to rule in matters of life, liberty, and property.

Waffler, that link is more full of drivel than we even typically attribute to you. A little background research on Bill Meyers only establishes his bias as a California Educator. California education, especially it's American History curriculum, is notorious for bad and false information. A recent review of the standard textbooks used to teach American History in California high schools and most colleges showed over 300 false facts per book. This is hardly the source you should go to prove a point. A quick google search on Bill Meyers reveals enough to do a well established ad hominem, but I will leave that to you. As for what Meyers says, this shows absolutely no professionalism in actual research, and with only one reading I found over 25 fallacies -- let alone how ambiguous it is. I do, however, love his statement: "a representative democracy is a kind of republic". ..laughs.. Really? A "representative democracy" is "kind of" a "republic", but "kind of" not; ya know, it's just sorta kinda like something, but it's sorta kinda not like that thing at all... in fact, if you tweak it, stretch it, and pull it apart it "kind of" looks like Mother Theresa! I'm sure if you follow that logic you can find Waldo in there somewhere too! Seriously? But enough of my strawman, let's talk philosophy and ideas. As for the phrase "Democratic Republic", it is worthless. The real designation of our country is a "Constitutional Republic", which can also lend itself to the "democratic process" (which, if you remember, does not mean it's a "Democracy"). A Constitutional Republic means this: The individual creation of nature is sovereign and has inalienable rights given from the Creator of nature to exist, move, act, and associate with other individuals to make up society; each individual -- being absolutely free to act in all inalienable powers as given by the Creator -- is a government to themselves to act in their self-governance. As such, each individual -- having full inalienable power from their Creator -- can also associate with other individuals of the same to create synergy in society to do that which they could not do by themselves. Since each individual is fully and infinitely endowed with inalienable powers by the Creator of nature, there can be no assumed powers over what the individual has individually. A group of individuals -- each individually having full inalienable powers from their Creator -- can agree to come together and form a charter (Constitution) to place limits on certain Representatives to reflect their needs to other groups as well. These representatives cannot assume powers greater than what those who have elected them have freely delegated (remember, each individual has full inalienable power; no one individual has more right or power than another -- nor does it even make sense that two individuals with full inalienable power can presumably and magically assume MORE inalienable powers over one individual, just because there are two of them). The individuals, however, may give their representative more power to act in their name to the whole as time goes along, but they are never allowed to give their representative power through congregation in what they have no power to give individually. Yes, the Constitution can be changed an amended, but it must be within the parameters and understanding of powers thus delegated by the individuals through their full and inalienable right. This is what our Republic seeks to defend that Democracies fail in: our Republic establishes that there is a law wherein the movements and conduct of the representatives must not infringe upon the inalienable power of their constituents; however, a Democracy's premise is that the individual has no Creator-given inalienable right or power, but what is only granted their rights by the benevolent majority. If you have a "Democratic Republic" you simply have a Democracy wherein the majority has stipulated certain rights to the minority; these rights can be adjusted, derailed, given, and retracted at will. However, in a Republic (as based on unalterable natural law), the majority cannot infringe upon the minority, because there exists an absolute codex of laws outside the majority's scope wherein it cannot rule. Our Republic specifically was built to create a government where the individual could DELEGATE the expression of inalienable powers to another to act in his stead in very strict and limited ways; never could that representative EVER act over and beyond the specific powers they had been granted. This really isn't a hard concept. If you hire an employee to represent you in a specific action at work, you would certainly be mad if this employee immediately started representing you in every other matter in your life and tried to even buy a house for you without your permission... This employee is given very strict and specific duties, and he cannot act for you in any way above and beyond those specified duties. Now, while a group of men may come together and elect one man to elect them to perform a specific service and duty, it is not legitimate for this one man to start representing the group in a myriad of other ways not expressly given; otherwise, we call this rogue action "usurpation". In our political sphere, we also have limits to what powers and duties we can give to our leaders... mere majority vote is not the end-all absolute thing to consider. If the majority decides to override the inalienable rights of the individual, they can do so by brute force and illegitimate power, but in a Constitutional Republic, this is usurpation and tyranny. However, in a Democracy, whose only stipulation for legitimacy is majority vote, there are no REAL inalienable rights -- "inalienable" rights are just a empty political twinkie phrase that gives you certain butterflies in your stomach when you think about them. Our founder's did not mince words; they wrote and meant what they said. When they wrote "inalienable", that's what they meant; when they wrote against "Democracy", that's what they meant; when they -- in the same sentence -- condemned Democracy and praised Republics, that's what they mean. That all being said for the thousandth time, please do not provide me with any more worthless drivel from self-proclaimed researchers and amateur historians -- it really doesn't look well on your own ability to fundamentally find a legitimate resource. Finally, if you ever do provide a legitimate resource, please provide one prior to the 20th Century... and then we'll talk some more.

But do not fall into the trap of associating the French Revolutions definition of Republic with the American concept; they were not the same. This was one of the very strong reasons why George Washington would not support the French in their revolution while he was President, even after the French had come to assist us in ours: the foundation, principle, and operation of the Governments were not the same; the French had taken a premise of Democracy in their Republic, and the United States had taken the premise of law. It's a political "twinkie" slogan to even claim the United States as a "Democratic Republic"; it sounds nice, tastes good, and seems like something desirable, but is completely void of any real substance. It is a phrase that was nowhere uttered or even considered during the foundation of the United States; it appeared quite some time later, after the foundations of the "Constitutional Republic" began to transpire. If someone were to actually understand what a "Constitution" really was (as opposed to what they wanted it to be), they would realize that the designation "Democratic Republic" is wholly unnecessary when protected under a "Constitutional Republic". Now, a "Constitutional Republic" is a phrase that DOES appear in early American writing of our American founder's vocabulary, discourse, and understanding. Sadly, as "Democratic Republic" started to enter the political sphere, the use of "Constitutional Republic" began to phase out; indeed, they are not the same thing, and cannot exist within the same sphere. Either one or the other exists, they cannot coexist with each other. Do not confuse "Democracy" with the "democratic process"; they are not the same thing... This is perhaps the one thing that most Political Science 101 students get wrong on final exams ("What is the difference between 'Democracy' and the 'democratic process'?"). The answer is that one is a form of government, the other is a method whereby that government may construct its leaders within a particular form. Your designation of Republic just now has completely counteracted anything you've ever said before concerning Republics and Democracies being the same thing.

..laughs.. We've been over this topic ad nauseam, and Waffler has yet to show me one quote from the Founders where they specifically spoke of "Democracy" encouragingly; in fact, they specifically hated Democracy. In fact, they went to great lengths to steer away from Democracy altogether; furthermore, in the original Constitution, the House of Representatives was the only office wherein the people actually voted for their Federal leaders -- not much a Democracy. Waffler, your assertion that "Re" in Republic is for a "return to the people" is comical at best. Thanks for playing, but you lose again. Even your hallowed wikipedia says that "Republic" is from the latin "Res Publica" meaning "public thing". Now, as of yet, you have NEVER answered the question I have repeatedly posed to you: If Democracies and Republics are one and the same thing -- as you have continuously blathered -- why does every Founding Father, political theorist, and political philosopher previous to the twentieth century always draw a clear and distinct line between the two forms of government? Why did Machiavelli and Madison speak extensively on the difference if there was no difference at all? Why did George Washington state that he would rather a Monarchy before a Democracy, but he praised Republics above all? Why did John Adams hate Democracy and praise Republics? Why does history show that Democracies never last longer than 200 years, but Republics last over 500 years? If you're right, how do you prove the majority to be wrong? You pompously proclaim that the only thing worse than an oppressed minority by the majority is its reverse, but yet you hypocritically assert your individual claim amidst a few contemporaries to absolutely redefine the whole spectrum and majority of history? Come now, Waffler, you must see your own hypocrisy? Certainly, you are free to assert your opinion to how business should be conducted today, and it is of no consequence if you deny the philosophy of America's foundation to promote what you think is a better ideal... but be honest about it. Don't show yourself to be the fool who merely re-interprets history because of your inability to resolve your own ideology with the past.

I looked out my door today to find "government". I saw the tree in my front yard, the sidewalk, the street, the houses and homes of my neighbors. I saw the sunshine and the new buds come out on the trees, and I felt the wind as I walked down the street. I got in my car and drove around the town looking for government. I saw cars and people; tall buildings and street lights; street lights and street signs. I saw the creations of man and of God all day, but I failed to find "government". I'm interested to know who this "government" is that is "busting their ba**s" for me that I should capitulate my property to it. I'm reminded of the words of Thomas Paine who said, "A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government". He further elaborated, "there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The [constitution] was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist... Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is DELEGATED, and by whom it is always RESUMABLE. [Government] has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties." I saw the town hall today in my city, but I still didn't see "government". I saw a building with people in it. I saw people working together, given a delegated duty to act in the welfare of those that put them in office. They can only act in the power we the people have given them, and we can only give them powers that we ourselves possess; otherwise, any assumed duties or powers is usurpation and tyranny. I cannot take money from my neighbor to pay for the public road, nor can I keep him from driving on it once it has been built. The compact between the people does not Constitute that I can force any man to do anything; even the powers of Eminent Domain have evolved to encompass things the founders never imagined. The powers that were delegated to the government for such things have been sorely abused beyond their means and limits. Individual rights were vouchsafe under the original Constitution, but only afterward were they infringed upon by unknowing or conniving individuals. Taxes were never meant to be directed from the people individually -- especially from the Federal Government. This is a violation of rights of the individual and a return to the very premise and systems of government the War for Independence fought to throw off.

I wonder how many students in academics would be willing to participate in a socialist grading system. Of course the below average students would love the increase in their grade, because they would be rewarded for mentality of never really working hard or sacrificing what it takes to get something better. The D students would love it, but the A students would scream murder. Initially, the grades would be averaged around a B; however, as time progressed and the previous A students realized that the extra hard work they put in before would not actually transfer to a better grade because of the slacking students, the A students slough off. The D students, who, by individual nature and mentality, are just coasting by, don't change. The first class average of a B soon becomes a C, and, because of the newly assumed mentality of the students -- the whole class fails. I laugh at the stupidity of people who say, "your taxes provide you the great living experience you have in America..." Bullshit. The amount of taxation is not even remotely associated with the quality of life. Government, in fact and by earned reputation, is the biggest squander of money on the planet! Bonnie, "the "rich squeel[ing] like little stuffed pigs" is the sound of all of those A students complaining for the injustice of a socialistic grading system! Those poor, poor, poor C students, and those bastard A students. It's UNJUST, isn't it?! I don't know why in the hell those A students shouldn't just give up their grade and turn it over to those C students. I mean, after all, we should all just be B students anyway! That way, everyone in class would be happy! Why don't you go out and give all of your money to the government then... If you really think that's the appropriate thing to do, then go give all of YOUR money to the government. Go. Go do it! Oh, wait. You're a hypocrite too? Figures.

We are all tainted by the "baggage" that you speak of, sure; that's the point. Our language, and cultural, religious, and societal upbringing shape our minds, questions, and answers. The question here is not "what brings more prosperity?", but "what is natural?" Sure, Edison could have had a maid, cook, and butler in order to free his time to invent the light-bulb. This does not negate the fact nor prove it. It is a separate issue. Between "the collective" and "the individual", there is only one that characterizes a natural state. "The collective" does not breath, it does not eat, it does not thirst; nor, without thought, does it even exist. A rock does not think, but it exists; a tree does not have a perceived consciousness, but it grows. These things are natural. Society evolved out of thought. That isn't to say that society is not beneficial, nor that enjoying the blessings of society makes one a socialist. To be a Socialist you would have to believe that "the collective" is greater than the individual. Can the creation be greater than the creator? Can the idea be greater than the thinker? There are a thousand arguments, but, like I said, when the smoke clears, you are still left with an abstract concept of "society" (a non-living entity that is created and exists in thought) and the individual (a living, breathing, thinking thing). And, again, as I said before, there is yet to be a societal problem that has ever been presented wherein it could not be solved while keeping in tact the freedoms of the individual. If our society truly were to enforce the laws that strictly dealt with merely the actual infringement of life, liberty, and property, there would be many social ills that we would never have been created. This isn't to say that such a system is void of problems, but at least in this system the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the people are vouchsafe to work and grow. Sadly, today, we are experiencing a mix of Socialism and Corporatism; such collusion is at the heart of our basic financial problems, and the cause of such great inequality among our people.

One of your better reasoned comments, Waffler. It is correct that many philosophers have stipulated that man is indeed a social (as well as a political) creature. However, (as Hegel would most likely interpret this problem) we should realize the thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis (Dialectic) of everything that has proceeded us. Locke and many philosophers of the Enlightenment wrote on man's social nature, but where did they get that idea? Sure, they saw "truth" through observation, but they are creatures of their time and era (complete with language, philosophies, and beliefs).Their interpretation was dependent on other philosophers that had proceeded them back to Plato. The Greek's notion of the Polis -- and the individual's relationship to the Polis -- would seem quite out of the ordinary to us today; in fact, most people would sound various calls of "Socialism" or "Fascism" if we instituted even a half of what the Greek's tried to institute, regardless of their "Democratic" ways. Their Socio-cultural norms were quite arrayed and different than we have today. How the Greek Polis came to be and operate within their society must be considered when one reads any of the Greek philosophers. This is a good rule when reading history as well: try to divorce your own personally acquired socio-cultural views when looking back through history, and always try to look at the socio-cultural norms of the philosophers within their own sphere, time, and space reference. You can also safely assume socio-cultural traditions are at the heart of such statements of man's "natural" state of being. My personal belief is that man is, in fact, a societal, political, and cultural being; however, I cannot overlook that while man has evolved (or was inherently created there-such) to be a social creature that this validates atrocities against the individual in the name of the collective. I have yet to find a societal problem that could not be answered while keeping in tact the rights, powers, and de jure responsibility of the individual whereupon society is built; the masses do not need to legislate the individual into compliance. While there are inherent difficulties present in the strict and narrow ruling of life, liberty, and property, the benefits, when practiced, have far outweighed the costs and/or problems associated with such a society. Preemptive legislation -- even in providing for the poor and needy of society -- is a poor band-aid for a ruptured artery.

What IS the community but a collection of individuals. The destruction of the whole can certainly be accomplished by ignoring the parts; furthermore, there is no such thing as providing for the whole while ignoring the parts. That being said, we must be careful that we're not guilty of the fallacies of division or composition. When all the smoke clears, there is no concrete natural entity or reality of "community"; however, the individual exists independently in nature. You destroy, tax, regulate, and distort the natural foundation of existence for that which is abstract and arbitrary, and you'll have problems.