Although Nietzsche criticized the synonymous nature of religion with morality, he, like Machiavelli, considered the relationship a necessary evil in establishing the rule of government. "Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I." Brilliant as Nietzsche was, he couldn't overcome the same obstacles that men had tried to overcome in their "invention" of God, as he tried to criticize the "absurd' belief that there was a God. His attack against morality stems from his "assumption" or "presupposition" that there wasn't a God -- just as many philosophers "assumed" that morality stemmed from their "assumption" that there was a God. Nietzsche didn't necessarily take a free and NEW approach to philosophy; he merely took the antithetical approach. He did, however, write a few correct words condemning democracy that are unmatched by nearly any other political philosopher. He understood that the "morality" of the majority, whether right or wrong, always reigns supreme in a democracy, and that this makes slaves and sheeple out of the people -- which he proves quite well.

It is not within the government's ability to legislate morality. It was on the grounds of morality that some of the most evil despots have gained and retained power. Americans forget their history; they forget that during the foundations of our nation we had two distinct courts of law: (1) equity, and (2) justice. Most of the "broken system" we have today is a result of the combining of these two courts of law. Justice's job is to apportion the punishment to the crime, to the extent that the injured person will be "made whole." There is still a faint aspect of this notion still left in the courts; wherein a person can sue for a "diminished value claim" of their vehicle, if they were involved in an accident that was not their "fault." This idea that the law would make the injured party "whole," and return all "lost equity" to that injured party, is where most Americans get hung up on legislating morality. I do not have the ability of punishing my next door neighbor for cheating on his wife, because of issues pertaining to morality; however, the wife has a right by law to be made whole if her husband's cheating resulted in her financial depravity, sexually transmitted disease, or any other possible extent where she could have lost "equity" at the law. In other words, if his cheating caused an infringement upon his wife’s life, liberty, or property (pursuit of happiness), then the government could be involved. The action of adultery, as a moral action, is not punishable by law.

As usual, Waffler miss reads what Mike is trying to say. There are laws that exist outside the will of the majority, they were called by the founders the "laws of nature." This philosophy concerning the laws of nature derived from the movement of the Enlightenment: Blackstone, Locke, Rousseau, etc. John Adams once spoke (in the understanding of these seperate laws that exist outside the scope of man's majority) that man cannot make "law," but he can only "define" it. These philosophers argued: Did man make the law of gravity? No. Did man make the laws of theormodynamics? No. Did man make the laws that regulate and govern the universe? No... but he can, by logic, "define" what laws already exist. In creating a government that would stand the tests of time, the founders sought for a proper foundation to establish our government. They saw that governments whose laws were built solely upon the laws of the majority had quickly committed suicide; whereas governments that were built on abstract and "eternal" laws (Republics) had withstood the tests of time (if there are any who doubt this, they obviously haven't read Machiavelli). Buckley is right--as he stays within the premise of law as understood by the founders--that man has not yet defined all of nature's law that will yet embody all "good." Although we can say that law absolutely exists in a state of nature, we have to admit that our definition of that law is always subjective to the individual defining it. Depending on who defines the laws of nature, society will either be protected or abused in their inherent rights. Not all defined laws are actually associated to nature, nor to they emobdy goodness; just as there are good laws of nature that we have yet to define but have failed to do so. The best way for government to provide for society's saftey is to allow and protect society's individual rights.

While I disagree with a few of his minor points regarding other issues, such as government granted privilege, I found his explanation of republics and democracies adequate: http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

Enforcement of the law, according to justice, is the very reason for government--hence, the need for a police force. I'm sorry, but Waffler, you have failed to yet fathom the foundation of a republic. You have used, in previous posts, modern terms and definitions (the international definitions at that) of "republic," to differentiate between democracy and republicanism-- I do, however, commend you for your diligence in further study. Yes, the Constitution was constructed to be the final authority in all federal matters, and the template for the several states to follow accordingly. As Jefferson said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Interesting the word he used, "mischief." Can our elected leaders—those men and women who are our "neighbors"—ever be up to "mischief"? Well, considering the separation of powers theory and the drastic lengths the founders went through to bind down the disposition of man to do political “evil,” I think we can confidently assume that not all public figures are honest and praiseworthy (I may be going out on a limb on this one, but I’m pretty confident). In this we state that many policemen, our very neighbors themselves, have risen above their stated callings to become something entirely different than what they were created to be. Have you read that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Police force in the United States is not there to "protect and serve" the PEOPLE, but there to "protect and serve" GOVERNMENT PROPERTY?! Who are the police actually serving? Even 50 years ago, there was a national thought that deemed the police as PUBLIC (the people's) SERVANTS--- not GOVERNMENT SERVANTS. This just goes to prove my point that time changes the perceptions, definitions, and foundations that we were built on. If you believe in progressivism and the new associated definitions to yesterday’s cliché words and phrases (like “laws of nature and of nature’s God” or “democracy vs. republics”), that is fine, you have that right. But don’t try to redefine the founders in today’s terms. If you want to vary from these principles they established, that is fine, but out of respect for those men who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of liberty, the least we can do today is respect them for who they were, not what we want them to be. Yes, there absolutely needs to be a police force... but there absolutely needs to be a police force that serves the people, not the government. This concept is alien to all but a few who still study the definitions, phrases, words, and meanings of our founder's speech---as THEY meant them. There is a dichotomy between democracy and republicanism; sadly, our forthcoming generation is ignorant in such matters.

Ironically, many liberal based neoconservative philosophies started with Barry Goldwater...

Well said, Mike. The problem in dealing with ignorance is that it's difficult to establish a basis of truth... It is difficult to reason with people who lack exposure to key basic concepts, definitions, and ideas. There are plenty of people who have been exposed to the redefinition of today's philosophies and ideas, but who lack the basic fundamental understanding and exposure to the ancients. It is a lack of exposure that would lead anyone to believe that Archer's comments ever conglomerate government into a monolithic persona. Government is an arbitrary system created, filled, and run by the people--Archer's comments do not define government in monolithic terms, but expose the ignorance of the people who wrongfully place their "trust" upon the only entity that can legally use coercion. "Government" is not my neighbor, it is my servant. While my neighbor may serve in office, he must do so with the knowledge that he serves the people.

This argument is as old as government itself. Such matters have yet to be disproven by the likes of Machiavelli who considered religion as a dichotomy--he hated religion because it made the people soft, but he accepted it as a necessary evil. Religion could deliver something that government never could: a means to establishing morality, humility, and self-government. We have become a stupid and ignorant people to believe that government is a great and wonderful catch-all to everything we ever wanted. Government is good at some things and terrible at others. Legislating morality is a quick step towards totalitarian government--this is one of the things government is horrible at--there can be no such thing as "forced virtue," I don't care what the Calvinists say. Government is good at rendering law and justice when the individual's life, liberty, or property has been infringed upon, and that's it... Nothing more, nothing less. While I agree with RobertSRQ that morality was with man from the beginning (morality existed before religion), we have to accept religion's place in relation to government and politics. To the ancient philosophers and our own founding fathers (even the "deists"), religion was an absolute necessity because it reinforced that morality that already existed within man. Government's ability to render law and justice is a poor tool in creating self-government--this is why legislating morality and government religions have never worked in maintaining the freedom and liberty of the people. A criminal, by defintion, is someone who incapable of self-government and breaks the established laws. It is interesting how religion is prisons is far more successful in rehabilitating criminals in becoming self-governing than mere justice and punishment has ever done. Justice doesn't change the nature of the person, it merely administers the law by associating the punishment to the crime. Justice itself is yet another poor tool in creating self-government. If religion can be used and relied upon as a tool in reinforcing the character, knowledge, and perception of moral self-government--then it is a tool that is not only useful but absolutely necessary in government's ability to render justice equally. George Washington is absolutely correct.

Waffler, please. If anything Archer is guilty of being too historically accurate and he's being too nice on history-- certainly not shortchanging it. As to your own perception, if you don't understand the philosophical, political, and differentiation of application between a democracy and a republic, you won't have any clue what Archer is talking about. There are several states that even today threaten to succeed from the Union-- and this is their right to do so-- but you don't hear of these issues in our media now, do you? Would it start another war? Because of ignorant people who claim to know history--but who ignore the facts, ideas, philosophies, and ideologies of the founders--it very well might. These ignorants claim the War Between the States (wrongly termed the "Civil War") settled this issue. It did not. Why is America taught that this issue was settled? Because, as you put it, "it seems that wars, especially 'successful' wars, increase the power of the victor even if the victor did not start out to seek power." History is written by the nations who won-- as it has once been said, "History is written by those who have hanged heros." We are taught of the rightness of the North because they won. It is sad that Americans are not only ignorant of their own history, but they argue so fervantly for a history that never existed... What's even more sad is when Americans read a modern textbook and claim to be knowledgable or read on a subject. Philosophy 101 teaches that we cannot possibly learn of yesterday by today's words, phrases, definitions, and meanings. If we want to learn of yesterday, we have to learn how men used language in their own day. If you really want to say you "know" something, then throw away your modern books and become a student of the ancients... As per our discussion with democracy and republics-- in any modern or current textbook or dictionary you will find that republics and democracies are defined as identical, except that a republic specifically refers to a "non-monarchy" (as per the International Political Science terminology goes). This is totally diametric to the definition of our founders. When the founders used the terms "democracy" and "republic" they were even in different usages than what Plato or Machiavelli used. The founders were closer, however, in how they used Plato and Machiavelli's termonology than we are to the founders termonology, because, sadly, the founders weren't as arrogant as we are today and actually sought to learn from the ancients instead of redefining what they meant on their own terms. There IS a reason why such definitions change--it's not dumb luck. The American History taught in our schools today completely redefines the issues, philosophy, ideas, and above all the language of our founders. We forget that Honest Abe didn't really care about freeing the slaves, that the founders hated "democracy," and that a Republic is based on "laws" that exist outside of the majority vote of the people. As I said before, you would first have to know the basic fundamental and philosophical reasons that differentiate an American Republic from an American Democracy, but to do this you would have to unlearn everything the American public schools have taught you and actually LEARN history. Sadly, too many Americans refuse to do this-- this surely is a witness to the paradigm shift in perception that America has gone through over the last 150 years.

As a Socialist, A.J. Muste speaks correctly. Socialism is based on democracy, because there is nothing that matters except for the will of the majority; as opposed to Republics that assume that laws exist outside majority rule. Socialism, as opposed to Communism, is established by due process of laws and statues, and requires mobocracy (democracy).

Well, as I agree with the author and look over the entire spectrum of presidential candidates, I can't help but rest squarely in support of the Congressman from Texas. He's absolutely the ONLY one who has talked or promoted this ideology of civil disobedience. http://youtube.com/watch?v=FGrlZTlD-Sc

Thank you Archer

Well said Archer.

As I have looked across the political spectrum, there is only one man I've found that still advocates peaceful civil disobedience. It is sad that the spirit that once pushed men towards freedom in the face of a moving tyranny is no longer prevelant in our society.

Waffler, If Republics and Democracies are synonomous, then how do you explain the words of John Adams here in talking about a Republic and here, talking about a democracy? Here, in Franklin's words, we see the established differentiation. Jefferson speaks of the differentiation here. Here, I think James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") had a little something to say about "democracy." You talked about Plato, bad idea, here is what Plato had to say about Democracies. Perhaps another quote by John Adams concerning a Republic

In this you can see that Republics and Democracies are fundamentally different in the fact that Republics "share in the sovereignty" whereas democracies are merely the will of the majority. Do you want to know the basic fundamentally different characteristics between democracy and republic? Democracies are based on the will of the majority -- that's it, period -- even representative democracies. Representative democracies are simply an elected version of majority rule. Republics, by nature, are based on rule of law. Now political philosophy will question what "rule of law" each Republic will base its foundation upon. In the case of the United States of America, the founders of this nation established that the rule of law be built on "the laws of nature and of nature's God." This idea of the state and law of nature is indeed a Christian influenced idea as brought forward by logical and reasoning men during the period of the Enlightenment. Why did the founders do this? Because they saw that throughout history, all governments were established on severely arbitrary and subjective grounds that couldn't stand the test of scrutiny and time. They sought to establish a firm foundation of law; a foundation that would not change over time.

Democracies create their own law from the will of the majority -- even representative ones. The basis of democracy is not in law, but in the will of the majority. Republics are fundamentally different, because they automatically assume the foundation of some kind of law. Again, in our situation as Americans, our founders based our Republic on the most objective system of laws they could possibly fathom: Nature in accordance to the will of God. As such, they established what they thought was the most firm foundation of law -- a foundation that would protect the minority from the majority and have a firm basis that would answer the call of time. By basing our Republic's laws on that of nature, they were then able to claim that man had "inalienable rights". Inalienable rights do not exist in democracy, because "rights" are subject to the will of the majority. If they would have based our government on the will of the majority, there would never be any real protection at the law. Why? Because whatever "right" was given to the minority on one day could be taken away from him by a majority vote on another. What sure foundation of government does THIS establish? It is insane to defend such a position. It is a fundamental flaw to say that men are equal in democracies, because they are not -- how equal is the minority in a democracy? Only in Republican governments, where the foundation for government is based on law, can the people ever hope to be equal. In all places whereof our founders spoke, they fought, bled, and died to give us a Republic. It is dishonor to them to accept or support anything less.

We stand today as Americans who have lost our heritage, because we have been taught what to think and not how to think. The Constitution specifically states that we were given a Republic (Article IV, Section IV). When I place my hand over my heart to swear allegiance to my flag I do not do it for the "democracy for which it stands" nor do I do it to the "representative democracy," but I pledge my alligiance to my "Republic". Only once we accept the foundations of our own heritage can we possibly fathom the attrocities we're committing around the world by setting up democratic constitutions. The constitution that we wrote for Iraq is horrible! It is based solely and independently on democracy. Our own founders KNEW that such a system would fail! And we're giving it to them anyway! There is no sure foundation upon which the Iraqi people have to look to -- they will be subject to the will of the majority. Such is a very sad situation, but worse because the American people have no idea what they're supporting.

Thank you Mike, Ken, and Archer for adding some sanity to this thread. I'm absolutely dumfounded at the leaps some people can make between Republics and Democracies. I once had a gentleman grab a newly purchased Oxford English Dictionary to "look up" the differences between the two foundations of government. It took me nearly an hour to finally "convince" the man that etymology (word's meanings, foundations, premises, understandings, etc.) change over time, and that looking in a current dictionary wouldn't do a single thing in helping him understand yesterday's terminology. This is what philosophy (especially Greek philosophy) calls "the flux" (or, the "change"). Waffler illustrated my point exactly in using today's etymology to explain yesterday's understanding. This is yet another problem with the course of America today-- we are ignorant of our past. We cannot know where we're going tomorrow-- if we don't know where we were yesterday--and expect to maintain for tomorrow what has made this country great. I will again restate that Bailey's comments are spot-on, because he speaks of the dichotomy of today's understanding as held against yesterday's knowledge, philosophy, and sure foundation. Waffler, I would suggest you actually read the words of the founders of this nation to understand the limits and bounds that they established for our "Republic" and the reasons they "hated" democracy. I would suggest, since you love your country as much as the rest of us here do, that you become educated in the foundations, principles, philosophies, and understanding that once made this country great. I would be more than happy, as I'm sure many members of this blog would be as well, to suggest some reading material if you would actually like to learn of the foundations of this great nation.

The more involved the U.S. becomes globally in matters that the Constitution gives no authority in, the steeper the opportunity costs. Who pays for these costs? We The People do. Although U.S. currency doesn't officially grow on trees, it's just as easily printed on the Federal Reserve's printing presses. We can clearly see just how easily money is printed as the Fed drops interest rates, while the value of our dollar plummets. I have no gratitude, but contempt, for elected officials who overstep and usurp their stated authority given to them by the people through the Constitution. Never were we to figure what we can "get" from the government, but rather to figure what it is taking away from us -- this is a simple economic principle. The United States is not a "democracy" nor is it a "democratic republic"!! Read your Constitution! Once you take time to actually read your own Constitution, you'll find that there is only ONE guarantee found in the entire document: Article IV Section IV. Once you have read this, try to find out what the differences between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY are! Read history! Read the philosophy of political historians who defined the language and terms that you so ignorantly use! Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on natural and inalienable laws as given by "our Creator," not arbitrary government. What does this mean? Go look it up in a book! The foundation of our government today, with all it espouses and promotes, is now based on the premise that government grants liberty and freedom. As it has been stated before, "The U.S. Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government." Don't believe me? What is a license than a permission of privilege? Where did the government get the POWER to grant privilege? The people don't have the power to give it to the government, and if the government gets its power from the people, where did it come from? Don't believe me? Why don't you spend some time reviewing the legal dictionaries over the last 200 years and see the change in legal terms for "license" or "privilege"! I suggest Black's Law Dictionary. Why don't you read the words of the founders of this nation who deplored democracy and nation building more than they did a monarchy and tyranny! Before you get on your soapbox, make sure you're educated in the history of what you speak of! Why don't you read Machiavelli who wrote of the quick collapse of Democracies and the longevity of Republics? As for the United States' ability of producing "democracy" all over the world, I will be glad to suggest a library of books for you reading pleasure that will show you the cost of U.S. involvement in foreign affairs. There was once a time when the United States stood tall, respected, and honored; however, due to the application of the new neocon and liberal philosophies, the United States is quickly becoming one of the most hated countries in the world. It is ignorant Americans who do not understand the paradigm shift of the consequences of an American Republic to an American Empire that do the most harm to this country, because of the false ideologies they ignorantly support. The United States of America has risen to be the greatest and most powerful nation ever known; however, there is a cost and responsibility to such power. Take a lesson from history, and learn that freedom, liberty, and responsibility are best espoused outside of democracy. Bailey may not be up on current matters of government, but this statement is philosophically and empirically perfect. Our government no longer exists on the same premise, foundation, or understanding of its heritage. The United States no longer operates on the principles of a Republic, but on the foundations of an Empire. If you don't understand what this means, then you'd better grab some books and start reading.

There is no contingency to freedom. The cliche that "Freedom isn't free" is false. Freedom is free, because man is born free, period. Men are "free" at all times, but their ability to express their freedom can and will be hindered. For man to maintain the full expression of his freedom against encroaching government calls for eternal diligence; however, freedom and liberty are always his, regardless. Governments are arbitrary entities that were established by men to enforce law. There are several different kinds of law (monarchial law, judicial law, natural law, etc.) by which each society will adhere. The founders of this nation, in what we call the "great experiment," sought to objectify the subjective law of man by ordaining this land adhere and operate under "natural law." This is further evidenced by John Adams words that man can not make law, only God can -- man's duty is to define the natural law that God has ordained. The premise of natural law is that all men have intrinsic rights, merely because they exist and reason. The Christian and religious view of this natural law is that governments will adhere to both the laws of nature and of nature's God who ordained the law in the first place, because they are inherently children of God and he has given them these rights. Man is not free because he does things--one cannot measure freedom; however, one can measure the expression of freedom, by which we can know the just cause of a government. I like Archer's differentiation between "manage" and "rule" -- very Jeremy Bentham of you.

Depending on how you look at historical events, the U.S., for the first time in its history, is fighting a war of choice, not of necessity. How can a group of people who claim to be a Christian nation violate this most sacred of doctrines? Christianity has largely become a Sunday philosophy, wherein the rules of the game can be changed at the moment when they are meant to be applied. Christ surely didn't mean for love, goodness towards, and forgiveness of people who actually harm you, did he? The more I study history, the more convinced I am of Stoessinger's words, "The message is clear: Through our own pride, we invite fate and nature to do their worst. The gods are not to blame." Man can wage wars in the name of Christ, but it is not Christianity if it violates the heart of sacred tenants of Christ’s doctrine.

This is the very scripture that caused my wife and I to name our first daughter "Liberty".

The verse quoted by Christ wherein he declared that he was the anointed one, or "Messiah." As a side note, I have often been very saddened, as I have read accounts of what men have done in the name of Christ. As a Christian, I can think of nothing more devilish than to see what men have done in the name of the Lord, while defiling his very word and his holy name.

It seems the pragmatic Kennedy wouldn't agree with crusading Bush. Conquest is a sign of Imperialism; a far cry from the Republic we were constituted to be. The preemptive use of force, in a sounding call towards democracy, violates the heart, tradition, and culture of American society.

This quote means nothing in today's application, except for an ideological feelgood placebo. Freedom and liberty are as inalienable to men regardless of ignorance or education. The grease monkey is as free as the Harvard Professor. This statement, in retrospect, is in reference to the Greek polis in which the individual was merely a conglomerate of the whole. The word "educated" in this quote is a mistranslation of what should be "knowledgeable". “Knowing” or “knowledge” of something, by their definition, meant an automatic action of doing what was “good”. “Evil” was nearly synonymous with “ignorance”. The Greeks looked at crime as a mere expression of ignorance. If you were ignorant and could not control your actions within the polis, then you had to be refrained and taught until you became knowledgeable—or “good”. The Greek’s definition of “freedom” constituted the physical ability of manifesting “good” actions. As such, it would logically follow that only the “knowledgeable” who by very nature have “good” actions can be given the “freedom” by the polis to physically manifest their goodness. The ignorant—or “evil”—were not given the ability by the polis to manifest their ignorance—in other words, they were not “free”.

Education towards what? I know of some very intelligent and educated neo-con professors who will support the absolute surge into Iran. I know of some very intelligent and educated liberal professors who would bankrupt this country with socialized and universal health care. I know the founding father's feared democracy, because even the educated man would succumb to fear of threat and the majority could be subject to mass hysteria -- giving up their freedom for perceived security. Sure, "education" is important, but towards what ends? We could be raised upon the educated lies of our fathers, what does this profit us? It's mere ideology to automatically assume this statement holds any weight in real application. It is not merely the ignorant that use good intentions to pave their road to hell.

I find it fascinating/saddening the philosophical positions that anthropologists generally take, especially against Western Civilization. Anthropologists have done much to destroy the foundations of philosophy with their ideological presumptions. As Kant would argue, the biggest problem people have in describing their world is in the failure of differentiating scientific or “pure reason” and the differentiation between space and time in “practical reason”. Anthropologists continually fail to do this. They fail to accept that when born, people don’t make their own language, but are raised, educated, and influenced by the language of the society in which they live—In essence, language makes the people. Concepts, ideas, holistic understandings, and perceptions are all skewed by how, when, and where a person was born into society and language. Even the most tenacious anthropologist cannot even consciously throw off the perception of the culture in which they were born—they will forever be subject to the language, culture, and society in which they were born to. Much of Garn’s statements are philosophical rot; because of his own sophist ideology he does not accept his own bias.