Waffler doesn't understand the concept Tony; the concept of "synthetic money" would make his head explode, if he ever actually began figuring some things out.

So, "being stupid and thinking that others who do know something are therefore conspiring" is a crime?

Waffler, once again, shows his lack of fundamental history and common sense altogether.

Ebon, that has absolutely nothing to do with this quote. The Republican Party didn't start until Lincoln! The "republican" that Jefferson is talking about is the form of government as mentioned in Article 4 Section IV of the United States Constitution. Great quote by Jefferson!

As Sobran stated: Money speaks as a language that Shakespeare would envy; the people don't understand or know the Federalist Papers anymore, but they understand government checks with their names on them.

Freedom works. This simple fact scares the hell out of politicians. Well said, Ben.

As attributed to de Tocqueville, "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."

I've advocated for a long time instituting a policy where one public official (through a draw) is required to give their life by public hanging every year, as a way to reinstate the spirit of Nathan Hale: "I only regret that I have but one life to give my country." This should garner the very type of people we want in office: men and women who will willingly give their life for the service of their country. Furthermore, this will keep out the politicians that are only seeking for power and glory, but attract those who genuinely want to serve. When they begin to see close associates give their life, they will think twice about sending other people's children (whom they've never met) into unjustified wars (and, as such, the leaders will be able to actually empathize with those families who have lost loved ones and associates due to public service). Finally, the type of people who would run for public office -- knowing the potential consequences -- would also think twice about confiscating their neighbor's property under the cloak-and-dagger clause of "justifiable taxation". If Obama and Emanuel can possibly pass off the shit they are concerning mandatory 3-month public service for any men or women between 18 and 25 years of age (under the premise that it will reinstate traditional American values of service), we can certainly make certain claims and stipulations on our elected leaders.

Ah, the Hannibal mindset: I will either find a way, or I will make one. Sadly, this mentality only really exists today in figuring out the various ways of taking the property of one's neighbor. The old adage to "get a job" mainly refers to the work it takes to go down to the government building and file for welfare. We make our own reality, but there are forces of nature that exist regardless of what mental contraptions we sometimes assume. It seems that society is sometimes hell-bent on denying gravity, but gravity maintains its consistency and keeps on working regardless of public sentiment (I use this as a metaphor, obviously). The founders rejected tyranny and simply declared themselves free, and they did so upon the foundation of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" wherein they declared their "inalienable rights" from their Creator. I am lucky to have grown up in a home where my father lived his life in accordance to this credo; hopefully a little of it rubbed off, as I agree with Ben that it is important to constantly remind ourselves that we make our own reality as to how we perceive our lives.

One of the greatest economists that has ever lived. Mises gives perhaps the most simple definitions for the free-market.

Amen, and Amen.

The logic that A = B and C = B, therefore B must equal A doesn't make logical sense. If all Alligators (A) are animals (B) (A=B), and if all Cats (C) are Animals (B) (A=C) -- it does not follow that all animals are alligators (B=A). If you were trying to establish in logic what is known as a "Barbara", that's certainly not it. If you meant to say that all B = (A and C), then you'd still be wrong (all animals don't equal alligators and cats). If you meant to establish a bi-conditional that A if and only if B, you'd still run into problems. If you were trying to assert a bi-conditional, you'd assume that A -> B, B -> A. If you are trying to assert the bi-conditional statement, then you've still lost your argument, because you've limited your basis of study so far that you've eliminated every other necessary factor in reality (logic sucks when you actually apply it to the real world, no?). You can make a bi-conditional statement of Republic if and only if it's a "rule of the many", and "Democracy" if and only if it's a "rule of the many" -- but no person will take you seriously, because, as stated, you've eliminated and narrowed your ideology and understanding so far as to make anything you say mere drivel. If you're trying to say that all "rule of the many" societies (S) are Republics (R) and Democracies (D), then it would look something like: (R and D) -> S. But then you've run into the problem that you now have two different terms that aren't the same thing (although they share a characteristic). If you say that R only if D, or D only if R, then you've still lost the battle. If you say S if and only if S, then you're giving a tautologous statement, and you've still lost the battle. I don't consider this the place for know-it-all-types, but I choose to speak out in areas where plain history is either purposefully re-written or ignorantly ignored. You don't have to read much to figure out that words, phrases, and ideas change; the current American understanding of government no longer follows that principle established by the founders -- that's just fine to. We can argue ideas; we can argue principles; we can argue what it will take to keep America free and her people strong and prosperous; however, we cannot honestly erase the words, ideas, and concepts of our foundation. Change course from our American roots and put us on a new track, but don't be a coward and hide behind the words of the founders as if where you're taking us is the same place. The simple truth is this: during the time of our founders, Democracy and Republic didn't mean the same thing (although they shared certain characteristics in how the Republic was administered). The founders hated Democracy; they fought diligently to establish a Republic. Instead of banging one's head against the wall to insistently say that these two words have always meant the same thing, why not simply reject the ideology and philosophy of the founders and say, "That was nice for its day, but today we would rather have a Democracy instead of the Republic as they defined it". Obviously there is a difference of opinion as to how society should move and operate -- that is just fine. I may fundamentally disagree with Waffler on a few of his ideologies, as he fundamentally disagrees with mine; however, it is unjust, unwise, and dishonest to rewrite history and purport modern-day sophistry in place of our original American understanding. As I have said ad nauseam: Disagree with the founders and revamp America, but be a man about it and don't try to distort history to justify your actions; be bold, declare yourself a man who can reasonably explain where we have been, why you don't think adhering to the ideas of the past will work, and what you propose to fix the problems in changing from the course of our historic past. If you can magnify the freedom and liberty of all men in the process -- rich and poor alike -- I am all ears. If you can keep vouchsafe the rights of the poor and the property of the rich, while establishing liberty and freedom for all... I'll be right there behind you, and I will fight to the end. Until then, Waffler, we'll continue this dance.

I'm still baffled at the ignorant assumption that merely because two different forms share similar characteristics that Waffler automatically assumes them to be the same thing. Just because the Sears Tower and the Eiffel Tower are both tall and are both "towers", we certainly do not consider them "one and the same thing". Just because Mao and Washington were both men who filled public office and had arms and legs, we can't assume they were "one and the same thing". I could come up with a thousand easy examples showing the same thing, and it wouldn't be enough to convince the ignorant. Just because I say that vehicles and airplanes are "modes of transportation", only the ignorant would claim that they're "one and the same thing". Really, just when I think Waffler couldn't baffle me any more with his ignorant assertions -- he makes another post.

Waffler, you have no idea what you're talking about; you cherry pick your information and disregard history. Your fallacies know no ends. By your logic, all monarchies are then dictatorships, and all aristocracies are oligarchies. They are not synonymous. Even by your own words (over the many years), you have made mention that not all Republics are Democracies. You contradict yourself continually. Yes, Democracies and Republics are "rule of the many", but they differentiate themselves by the premise, foundation, and understanding of law. Go ahead and read Aristotle to see how he differentiates between the two before you comment again. Get an education and knowledge (in the true Greek sense), and then what you say won't be as ignorant as you continually prove yourself to be. Reject the ideas of history, but don't become a liar in rewriting history to fit your own sophistry.

I'm a fan of Will Durant -- I own and read his series "The Story of Civilization".. great read. Good observation, very Aristotelian. The rich seek to get richer at expense of the poor man's rights; the poor man seeks to establish his rights at the expense of the rich man's property. The solution proposed by Aristotle was a productive middle-class that would balance the rich and the poor from basically killing each other. Aristotle went on to define the differentiation of society into selfish models of government: Tyranny (rule of the one), Oligarchy (rule of few), and Democracy (rule of the many). He further established the more equitable or virtuous orders of government: Monarchy (rule of the one), Aristocracy (rule of the few), and Republicanism (rule of the many). This is exceptionally poignant when reading what John Adams said: "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Obviously, Adams was not against self-government or a representative government; he understood the nature of law and the need for the rule of law before the frenzy of the people. This contrasts what Adams further stated: ""All good government is and must be republican. But at the same time, you can or will agree with me, that there is not in lexicography a more fraudulent word... Are we not, my friend, in danger of rendering the word republican unpopular in this country by an indiscreet, indeterminate, and equivocal use of it? [...] Whenever I use the word republic with approbation, I mean a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty... the republican forms in Poland and Venice are much worse, and those of Holland and Bern very little better, than the monarchical form in France before the late revolution." To indiscriminately use the word "Republic" to define whatever it is that want it to be (such as synonymous with "Democracy"), we stand in peril of making fraudulent the word. The Republic stands for shared sovereignty of the people (all people standing sovereign independently thereby elect representatives, and delegate to them certain enumerated duties wherein they may act), but prohibits the masses from encroaching on the individual through majority consent. We have a Constitution that, once drafted, stood to protect the rich man's property while protecting the poor man's rights -- not on the idea of majority rule, but on the knowledge that all people abide by the rule of law as stipulated: The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, which the Constitutional Law was to be held up against. Truly, such a system and understanding of government does not exist in mass understanding; Joseph Sobran was right: "Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not. Too many Americans depend on government money under programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy. Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers, but they understand government checks with their names on them."

Waffler, have you found any quotes from the founders where they expressly purported Democracy? I have nearly 15 direct references to where they stated their near hatred for such a system. I have, in addition, several quotes where our founders argued for a Republic (while arguing against a Democracy). I've read the philosophers of the past -- you know, the people who actually defined the terms of Republic and Democracy -- and they draw a huge fundamental and principled differentiation between the two. Why do you think they did that? Why do you think that the political philosophers (those that have historically defined political terms) who have ever purported a Republic has despised Democracies? Furthermore, why do you think that the definitions of these terms have been purposefully changed over the last 100 years away from their original context? Get an education there son, and then get back us...

Waffler, can you not read? Do you not understand history at ALL? This delves into the classic argument of whether or not the people should be free to rule themselves; as opposed to whether to the people are stupid, ignorant, lazy, etc. and cannot be rightfully assigned their own self-government. The "intellectual" being discussed here is that of the heightened academic who he argued tried to influence government policy to their own detriment (the intellectual thinking that government could coerce, force, and legislate people into freedom). Hoffer was never pigeon-holed into being a "right" or "left" author -- so, don't try. He merely argues that the aristocrat finds it difficult to exercise his perceived "right" over society due to his academic achievements and knowledge over his fellow man when the people are free. This isn't a hard concept to understand; he is certainly not advocating book burning, killing the intellectuals, or destroying all the machines -- get real... Or, at least get an education. Learn how to read.

Well, yet another case where Waffler has no clue what history teaches. While the rest of us have actually read the founders and know what they've talked about, Waffler likes to simply use some variation of "our founders said" without ever knowing if they actually said it... Luckily, the vast majority of persons who post to this blog have actually read the words of the founders and can call Waffler on his stupidity. Just because you reject the foundations of history, don't try to re-write them -- that's dishonest and makes you not only stupid... it makes you a liar.

Interesting bullshit if you ask me, especially when Bernanke finally admitted this to Friedman at his birthday party. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59405 This is worth reading...

Yeah, all "rights" are alienable and merely objective to Waffler; he says he believes in America, but he denies the ideas, philosophy, and ethic that made it the country that it has been. Natural rights are inalienable, although tyrannical governments have infringed upon these rights. If someone holds my head in a bucket of water and I suffocate, I have never abdicated my right to breathe -- I have merely been unjustly forced, and the ability of expressing and acting in my rights has been limited. If my right to breathe could be taken away, then there should be no penalty for the man who intentionally murdered, because there was no violation of rights -- merely the abdication. Government may force us, but they cannot take away the inalienable right; governments that do not act in accordance with inalienable rights act in usurpation and tyranny. This is the philosophy of our American foundation and is beyond contest. You can deny the foundational premise behind such belief, but this was the foundation of our country. Nothing is more sacred than property in a Constitutional Republic; you are severely ignorant and lack any understanding of our American foundational theory if you believe otherwise. Read a book, get educated, and go back to school before you comment next time. Get in touch with your inner Locke and then get back to us there, chief.

The more you try to control a situation, the less control you have over it. Freedom works. I don't try to control the environment outside my front yard; however, I recognize the duty, stewardship, and ownership of property. Obviously Waffler has never owned a large portion of land, nor has he experienced what it takes to let freedom exist in a natural state without trying to "control" it. Land and nature have a life of their own; at best, man can only be a steward on land -- it is unnatural for im to control it. Spending summers and large portions of my young life growing up on my grand-father's farm certainly impressed upon my mind that land, property, and stewardship are natural commodities of life. You cannot "control" the land naturally. I cannot force or control the sun to shine or the seed to germinate; albeit, by asserting stewardship I may create heightened conditions wherein plants and animals can thrive to the best of their creation, by building furrows and irrigation. Man's natural state of existence is what the Founders sought to establish within a body politic. They realized the de facto paradigm of "control" that man regresses into by wishing to exercise "control" over man, but they sought to sidestep this issue by adhering to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Obviously this way of thinking eludes Waffler, as he has no idea what in the hell I'm talking about. Control is an arbitrary assessment and perception of the weak minded who find more perceived security in tampering with the natural than simply by living in accordance with it. The best safeguard against the abuse of power is an educated populace in the principles of liberty and freedom, not in the septic-ideology of might-makes-right. Once the populace no longer understands the principles of liberty and freedom -- and they only understand and accept the might-makes-right sophistry -- all a politician has to do to become an accepted tyrant is to get the majority on his side. This idea is as old as political science itself -- Machiavelli was a smart man.

Ah, it was Waffler that posted under Anonymous... makes sense now concerning the fallacy.

Thanks for the fallacy Waffler, we can always count on you. Genius was never started by government; government is not the author of such a concept. Simply because I rally together with the majority of my neighbors and arbitrarily pass a "law" that all cars must fly, does not mean that the market will naturally contort to our delusions of grandeur. Centralized systems that force creativity end in drivel and eventual suicide. Athens, Rome, the Renaissance, the Mayan, and Aztec were not first established as centralist societies. Yes, even you, in all your dribble, promote that the government is the people; however, I ask you, do you freely open your wallet and life choice to your neighbor to let him make the most important decisions of your life? The nature of creativity within a society where your neighbor forces you to do certain things (in a centralist society) or from a society where you are free to act according to your own dictates will vary widely. Secondly, if you wouldn't entrust your neighbor with the majority of your finances (as a self-appointed "sharp and analytical" man that you implicitly claim yourself to be), how is it that you are so damn ignorant to blindly trust the government? After all, they're just your "neighbor" too. You are full of contradictions and fallacies... even after these many years, you can't get two thoughts out that don't invalidate every argument you purport.

Anonymous, remember the difference between government CORRUPTION and government COLLUSION? Yes, W may be been guilty of collusion, but don't be naive to current corruption or its current variation of collusion.

Why is it that most people who post as "Anonymous" usually say the dumbest things? Sure, if all that was done was the creation of Homeland Security and the sharing of communication between government entities (which, I see nothing wrong with sharing information, but I do see a Constitutional problem with the conglomeration of every type of governmental institution) there would be few things wrong (so long as you did it Constitutionally). However, Anonymous presents us with a red herring; the problem with the Patriot Act 1 and 2, Military Commissions Act, and other damning and freedom destroying legislation passed through by the Bush Admin has nothing to do with the criteria as presented by Anonymous.