Robert, thank you for proving my point. This statement cannot be taken rhetorically! It's impossible! You take it in totally different terms than I do, than Mike does, J Carlton does, Hitler, Saddam, Jesus Christ, or Buddha would. You are unique in your perspective, in that you have experienced life in totally different terms than any of us have. My view is not the same as Mike's, yours, Saddam's, Jesus Christ's, etc-- because I'm unique in my perspective. What is "right"? Obviously Americans have a TOTALLY different idea of "right" than do most middle-easterners. Ironically, due to mirror image, they perceive us largely in the same terms we perceive them-- We consider fundamentalists as cruel, immoral, inhuman, and radical fascists. They perceive us the same way, because of our foreign policy in the middle-east over the last 60 years. Both sides have valid claims; so, who's "right" do YOU adhere to? Americas or the middle-east's? They are two conflicting ideas, both thinking the same thing about each other. They both have thought AND acted on what they perceived as "right". This is only one of the near endless examples that show this quote as philosophical rot. Bush did what he felt was "right", but for who? himself? the country? both? Who's to say, you don't know the man -- anything you say is stipulation. You are a victim of your own defintion.

bravo!

What's the right thing? Did Hitler "know" the right thing? Is that what he did? This is philosophical rot. Are people justified in their actions just because they "knew" it was the "right" thing to do? If this quote were valid, we wouldn't even have a selmblance of the dilluted court system we already have. Criminals would be arguing the honestly perceived "rightness" of their actions, and getting away with it. I personally believe in absolute truth, but because the very tools we have to diagnose the absolute from the ever chaning are changing themselves, we can never arrive at an absolute anything. This quote justifies the unjustifiable.

The most correct definition of "truth" I have come across is that "truth is". I agree that there is truth, but philosophically there can be no unifying qualification to truth. You can only presuppose that an intentional "lie" can only happen when the "truth" is already known-- however, what if what a person believes to be the truth is a incorrect? As an extreme example: Suppose a man claimed the sun was purple, even though he knew (or thought he knew) that the sun was green. Both his "lie" and his perceived "truth" are incorrect (because we all know it's brown, right?). If truth is static, and exists even if it's not perceived, then we have a problem: All methods of interpreting or defining truth (language, reasoning, etc.) are in flux-- they are always changing. How can we possibly ever objectively define the concrete when the very tools of definition are in flux? Yes, truth IS absolute. But because men are subjective beings, corruptible in every way by the flux, our interpretation of truth is--at best--relative. This doesn't change the fact that the quote is worthless, unless Shelley defines his own interpretation of the "truth". A statement of truth, by itself, is worthless unless the limits are found to what is being expressed.

What truth? Philosophically speaking, truth is relative, because everyone opperates on their own subjective perception and level of understanding. Even religion cannot find a unifying "truth"-- look at how many Christian sects there are who interpret and claim "truth" from the Word of God (Bible) but who continually contradict each other (and I'm saying this as a Christian). Is Shelley's version of truth the same as my own? What if my version of truth wants to cleanse the blood line of Europe? The limits of Shelley's "truth' would have to be established for this quote to be worth much.

Sounds a lot like Descartes.

All governments operate on a level of de facto-ism in the establishment of their laws, because governments are made up of men who cannot escape objective thought, regardless of what basis their laws are derived. Our government was unique--building on philosophy of the enlightenment--because it based its laws on “nature and of Nature's God," as well as such philosophy as Locke's "natural law.” While other countries around the world are fundamentally built on laws established by the monarch or the majority, the United States established their foundation on natural law. If we automatically assume that we are to support any law that is passed by our government, we are severely mistaken. In the United States, we have wandered from the Republican foundations of natural law, and have established both monarchial law (executive privilege) and democratic law (majority rule, regardless of natural law) in its place (not to mention many others). Through democratic infringement on our Republic form of Government, we have enacted many de facto laws that we should rid ourselves of. Civil disobedience is a form of natural right, however, and should be something the citizens engage in peacefully to rid themselves of unnatural oppressions. This quote means little to nothing whatsoever in US application, because it is based on the operation of the Greek polis, which the foundation of our government rejects.

That and a 30ft high cement fence along our southern border. A socialized society CANNOT initially use knowledge to solve it's problems, it must use force.

So what’s the difference between justice “absolutely” affixing a punishment to a crime, and simple justice affixing a punishment to a crime?

No, that was FDR, not Teddy... Good point though.

Good government protects the people in their inherent and inalienable rights-- nothing more, nothing less. Good socialist government is the most dangerous government, because it deprives the people of the need to look after themselves.

Brilliant...

Unless you're around the President speaking against the war, then you get quarantined...

Clinton's arguement is based on a false premise-- If government were the actual entity that granted liberty and freedom, then he'd be perfectly accurate; however, as per the Declaration of Independance, the founder's of this nation clearly identified the source of their freedom-- These founders had looked through the annals of time to see that governments that were based on the philsophy where rights and freedoms were given BY the "government" quickly turned to anarchy and tyranny. The only other option they could possibly see was an appeal to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" because all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). It was God who gave rights, and government who were to protect these rights--- no matter how you look at it, government cannot revoke what the Creator has given and still be true to its trust-- especially in our Republican form of government.

10 stars.

Well said.

That's funny Reston, because the document that declares the independence of every individual in the country in which you live says that "When in the course of human [man's] events, (or rather, how you say, "that which we humans have given to ourselves") it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"... In other words, when man's creation has become so tyrannical that you can no longer deal with it, and you need to break free of that bond-- The founder's realized that if they're going to break free of man's mess, their only option was to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"... in other words, their only option was an appeal to the laws of nature in accordance to nature's God... They went on to say what they meant by this, "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.- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is to say, the founder's appealed to their Creator for the "rights" that only he could give them... And this is the premise on which our government was built, to protect these rights given to us by our "Creator". So, Reston, I actually find john-douglas' comment to be completely accurate and in-line with our American History and Heritage... Your beliefs may change America's future, but you cannot do anything to change the truth about her past... Some truths really are "self-evident", even if some don't accept them.

The "Republic" was gone long before King George. More American's are simply waking up to the fact of what's been going on for over the last 100 years. From almost the very beginning, the power that comes from being a Republic has been usurped bit-by-bit-- with freedom and liberty come total responsibility and accountability for one's own self-- such a concept is too scary for some men to perceive, they would rather abdicate their freedom and liberty for another man's promise of their security and safety... But such is the course of nations-- Can you totally understand, enjoy, and fight for freedom and liberty when you haven't yet endured the bondage of despotic government? Why do we look to our Founder's for so many answers? Because they were men who understood what it was like to have their basic freedoms usurped and threw off their despotic government-- they were educated men who studied and knew their history-- and what it would take to ensure that such things would never happen again, if the people would only remember their own history. Such has been the change in the heritage our Founder's gave us, from a government which "protects from" to a government that "provides for".

Very Powerful -- Absolutely! I would give this 10 stars if able.

Agreed with Mike. Current philosophy never actually arrives at "truth", but continually seeks to ask “why?” In philosophy, truth changes daily-- depending on what argument was presented more clearly one day than the next. There is no absolute resolve to philosophy, only the search—or, as coming from a religious stand—“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2nd Timothy 3:7). That being said-- I love philosophy, and I wish it were taught in all levels of education.

Absolutely!

This is a quote that is most often misapplied-- while it is true that you cannot have liberty without morality, it is also true that once you legislate morality you will lose liberty. All the laws in the world legislating morality will not curtail some men from being criminals; after all, that's what a criminal IS: someone who breaks the laws. You cannot stop criminal behavior by making more laws-- that merely gives him additional laws to ignore. In order to curtail the criminal, an inward change towards personal accountability and responsibility needs to happen to make that criminal want to be something or someone better-- to become someone who will find a better way in life than by being a criminal. Faith is defined as believing in something that you cannot see; thus, faith is a necessity for any criminal to believe that he can be something "moral", even though he cannot see himself as the person he may wish to become.

This quote is in reference to the militia-- all males over the age of 18 were part of the local militia-- if you decided to not be a part of the militia or to not own a gun for your own protection, you had to pay a special tax for someone else to protect you. Societies of the past have not crumbled because they have all been able to personally protect themselves-- but crumble when only a few select are allowed to "protect" society (police, cia, fbi, military, etc.) while the rest are helpless. Criminals will always have a gun-- even if all the laws in the world are passed against such-- that's what a criminal IS: someone who flaunts society's laws. Arms-controlling laws only make honest people honest, while disabling them to protect themselves from the dishonest.

Amazing...

Disarming one and arming another, taking from one and giving to another, stripping one man of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because he may have more than his neighbor-- yeah, socialism certainly creates "equality". Is the man receiving the legalized plunder or constituted privilege any less a slave than the man being stolen from?