Well, I'm glad Waffler's not a politician -- if he were, every time he'd pull out a dictionary to try to define something, we'd all somehow end up losing all protections to our freedom and liberty...

I find it quite humorous that the people on this blog who purport more individual liberty, accountability, and freedom are the ones Waffler are saying "hate Freedom and Liberty and free expression wanting to keep everyone under a stone". We're the one's purporting a system of society and government where the individual is NOT taxed, licensed, surveillanced, or coerced into doing what he should be doing in the first place. Ya know, Waffler, a free society CAN really exist without trying to "legislate liberty" -- Interesting thought - and I want you to think long and hard about this - it's that liberty isn't something you legislate, it's something that's yours because you simply exist. Jim K's a fascist? LOL!! I've never heard of a libertarian leaning conservative called a fascist before! An anarchist, yes, but never a fascist! What school of tomfoolery did you graduate from?

I still adhere to the idea that we should hang at least one public official per year -- that would bring just about the right kind of people into office, and perhaps re-instill the thoughtful words of Nathan Hale, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country". Sadly, those who would rather give their lives for their country than for seeking for a public title are all but extinct; no where is this more evident than in a Congress that so easily sends the American military into war while keeping their own kids bouncing around on military deferments. Cowards all.

Waffler, son, I'm convinced that one day you'll "get it". Public opinion has its place; problem is, when public opinion accepts that the only absolute is majority rule absolutely, well then... tyranny and usurpation follows and abounds. Why? Because if you base a system of legitimacy, society, and government only upon what the majority says absolutely -- then you establish a system of government wherein the Hutu are justified to legitimately kill the Tutsi. I don't know how it can be said any clearer. Even gang rape is okay in Democracy (so long as the gang was in the majority). This principle applies no matter how many people you add to the equation.

But what if, just what if, you have a society that doesn't believe that mere numbers equates to legitimacy? What if it was reasoned that a set of laws existed that established a woman's rights against the gang that wanted to attack her? If it was the gang that gave her her rights, the gang could most assuredly and just as legitimately take them away (thus establishing that there is not true protection of rights in a Democracy). If the gang consisted of 5 men, and there was one passer-by who tried to help the lady from being raped, in a mere Democracy, that man is a traitor to the organization, a would-be tyrant for not accepting the majority's decision of rape, and a danger to the order of things... Indeed, such an individual IS a danger to the expressed belief that merely because the women is in the minority she has to succumb her body to the probing of 5 men.

Individuality shatters the collective thought. The majority in this gang rape decided that the women had no rights, and if they exist and operate under a Democracy, they're right -- because her "rights" are only extended to her in trust, in a Democracy, that these men won't rape her. Ironically, our American society nowadays rejects that mere numbers plays a part in establishing this gang-rape majority, while still ignorantly supporting this system of government on a macro scale towards government -- a system of government our founders rejected and tirelessly sought to dismiss out of our society.

Those on this site who you so adamantly disagree with are the only ones who promote a political philosophy wherein we reject that it is okay to rape the women, merely because her attackers outnumber her. We claim that she has inherent rights, separate from the gang that is preparing to rape her, and that she should be protected in her individual rights against an usurping majority. That the majority gang does not, by virtue of being in the majority, have any legitimacy, though being in the majority, to rape her.

These men may overpower her, overcome her, and have their way with her (one person one vote) -- but how in the hell can you be so sick and demented to conclude that these men have the authority to have their way with her? This is the very establishment of 'de factoism'! Let's say it was 10 men and 2 women; or 30 men and 25 women; or 100 men and 99 women; or 1,000,000 men and 500,000 women... It doesn't matter WHAT the ratio is, the action IS STILL WRONG!!

Democracy does not look for morality, it simply looks for one person/one vote -- majority wins absolutely all of the time without exception (kind of makes you wonder why Bush won and not Gore or Kerry, eh? The Dems actually had popular vote -- interesting that our founders established the electoral system -- yet another proof against your Democracy theory). This is why the EU IS a Democracy and why the US is NOT. As I have brought up before, John Bruton protested a US "Democracy" because we adhere to standard and codex of reasoned rules outside the voting parameters of the majority; however, the EU does not have such a standard, because the majority can vote on whatever it wants. When I asked him how the EU thus protects the minority, he merely stated that the ONLY way to protect the minority in a Democracy is to operate all matters by unanimous vote -- which, by the way, the EU does.

You are left without argument, sir. Your ramblings are over, you are left defenseless to wallow in your own mire of asinine ideology. Good hell, how long have we been arguing this fact... at first you wouldn't concede the point that our founders rejected Democracy -- you gave the most ridiculous arguments declaring the American fighters to somehow be in the majority -- then after we all called that lie, you beset to ramrod more of your blank theories into some celestial quagmire. Good hell again! Give it a rest!

Well said Mike...

It is very interesting that John Adams deplored Democracy -- saying that Aristocracies and Monarchies are even better than Democracies -- but that he was a champion and firm supporter of Republics (which Waffler defines adamantly as "non-Monarchies"). Clearly, Adams is not caught in a dichotomy when you realize that Democracies and Republics cannot exist at the same time (though Republics MAY include a "democratic process" -- which, however, does not make it a Democracy). So, Adams rejected Democracies, praised Republics, and supported our Constitutional Republic -- what does that tell you?

Thank you Waffler for proving my point, Democracies DO fall apart. WHY do they fall apart? Because of the mentality of groupthink that it instills within the populace. When a society thinks it can do anything it wants merely by majority vote, it unwittingly gives government powers the individual (the basis of a majority) has no power or legitimacy in giving to government. The people do not have the power to give to government something that an individual may not individually give -- if government acts in these imaginary powers, however, then it assumes and usurps un-natural powers and the system is now de facto. This is how Democracies always end in dictatorships and tyrannies. If the system of government looks first to law, instead of the people, in making its decisions -- this is yet another safeguard on government against public frenzy. This is why Republics have lasted longer than Democracies. Democracies always have short lives when the majority finally votes itself, knowingly or unknowingly, into tyranny and dictatorship; Republics, good and bad, look to the established premise of laws in making decisions instead of to the people (although some Republics, such as ours, are structured to instill all power within the people by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments) -- Government may only act in accordance with law, and law can only be established according to the rights of the individual.

That's a new twist on the Lewinsky scandal.

It doesn't take a "politician" to vouchsafe freedom or liberty -- it takes a statesman. Sadly, I have yet to find a politician in government who does not consider whether or not something CAN be done legitimately, but rather just about how they can get THEIR agenda done before the other guy. There is no principle in a Democracy other than what you can sway the majority to agree to; principle and truth is thus arbitrary to whatever party is in control at the time -- a societal paradigm of wikiality. Democracy breeds politicians, because it establishes a government where ANYTHING can be done -- so long as it has popular/majority consent. You want to kill children legitimately? In a Representative Democracy you just elect someone to rally the majority to your cause -- and instantly you can legitimately kill children, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your situation. You want to invade a country without merit or cause? In a Democracy you can -- you just have to get majority consent! Statesmen, unlike what you find in a Democracy, understand that there are certain things that even a majority cannot vote away -- inalienable rights, for example. Governments who take their orders by the law first, and then the people -- these have historically been proven to last the longest before turning into tyranny.

Well said, Archer.

It's a cute take, but as RKA talks about -- depending on who gets into office this November, we're going to get a "liberal" and a "conservative" president. Obama will be a "liberal" domestically and supposedly an unarmed "conservative" internationally. McCain will be a "liberal" domestically and an idiot everywhere else. I'll just settle for being an "extremist" then...

Ha Ha, damn the Bush Doctrine and neo-conservatives all!

Libertarianism isn't against government, nor does libertarianism extend the idea of no government. Libertarianism reduces the federal government to the strict bounds of the Constitution, and the individual State governments to local matters pertaining to how individuals interact with each other in their rights. The state, from a libertarian point of view, has no power, authority, or ability to act in anything the individual cannot give it power to act in; since the individual can work with his neighbor to put a road between their two properties, the individual can also delegate to the state to act in his stead (while keep vouchsafe the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the individual). It's not a hard concept to understand, and is certainly not anarchy... Just as a side note, anarchy is a arbitrary term, because there can be no absolute anarchy. Even in the largest mob riots and other "anarchical" groups, sociologist can still find some semblance of order...

That's great to have such conviction, and I'm against the massacre as well; however, we mustn't let our conviction lead us to idealism. Idealistic conviction is what got us into the War in Iraq (Bush's "Crusader" mentality, for instance) -- and what has our economy in such a squandering cesspool. In fact, the best analysis' that have come out over the last 50 years concerning nearly every major world conflict and war show that such wars could have been prevented should the leaders had not been lead by their idealistic conviction (which turned out to be yet more cesspool spewing sophistry). History is wrought with pragmatists becoming crusaders. You've got to hand it to these countries involved in these major conflicts, the politicians sure do a good job in jerking the people into mass acceptance of their policies though. Look how easily we gave up the protection of our rights after 9/11, for some merely temporary and ill-perceived security. I often wonder just how courageous us Americans really are anymore; our founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to the cause of individual liberty, freedom, and independence. They thought their freedom meant more to them than their lives, and they were willing to fight and die for it (which some who signed the DOI actually were killed for it); nowadays, is there a generation of Americans who have been so willing and eager to give up the protection of the their rights for some perceived security?

Another sad state of affairs when men entrusted with keeping liberty and freedom alive are so caught up in dishonesty, lies, gimmicks, and distortion. 5 stars for the honesty of the comment, a thumbs down for sad state of affairs.

I'm a fan of Sobran; I've liked the majority of what he's had to say. I'm 10 stars to the quote.

Sad state of affairs when the men entrusted with protecting the exercise of liberty and freedom think of politics as a "game" and ridicule the importance of their position.

Of course, it's everyone else's fault? In our society, yes, it is considered an absolute, "irrefutable" and undeniable that it is undeniably "evil" to strangle an "innocent, helpless, defenseless human being". That's for OUR society, based on the evolution of thought, religion, philosophy, and political entities wherein we've been raised to know and understand; however, there are some cultures currently living where, though they would agree with your premise, would still strangle their teenage daughter to death for having premarital sex -- and they would do this as an act of mercy. So, in this case, we would have to define what is "innocent". In OUR society, she is still "innocent" for that type of punishment, and WE consider it "evil"; but the paradigm we both live under is different. The Biblical law in the Old Testament stoned to death adulterers and homosexuals... What is your definition of "innocent"? If I were to stone a homosexual nowadays, would this be evil? What is evil? Our media is quite open about adultery, and nearly every movie or television show we watch has premarital sex and/or adultery (something that supposedly "righteous" cultures considered an abomination to penalize with death). There are some on this blog who purport a system of government that purport "majority rule absolutely, all the time, with no exceptions" as an establishment of government/social legitimacy; although when you even take a quick glance at current events you see that such a premise of social existence legitimizes the Hutu/Tutsi conflict where the Hutu outnumbered the Tutsi in the 1994 Rwanda genocide by at least 3-1. The conflict, that nearly any human would consider vile and evil, was done in close combat attacks (using machetes to dismember men, women, and children and leave their bodies, less their arms and legs, to bleed and die in the streets), and was performed by the overwhelming majority. Apparently, their society and their Democracy was deplorable to everyone else, but was supposedly justifiable enough by the Hutu as they killed over 70% of the Tutsi in their country. Even in something as "absolute" as killing an innocent, we can still find philosophers and ideologues. The most important thing to do, instead of being an ideologue, is to define one's terms and definitions -- and then create an argument that transcends "This is just the way it is... Because I'm saying this is an absolute, and because society or my religion thinks this is an absolute, so I must be right".

Do absolutes exist? Truth exists "independently and nobly", right? Problem is, philosophically, we cannot absolutely determine that which IS absolute, because the medium of our exchange -- language -- is always changing. Society's arbitrary diatribes often leave out truth in its search for security; thus, it is even more difficult to seek for "truth" within mere society when searching for the concrete amidst the "flux". Nature is the strongest source of finding the manifestation of absolutism, as we accept the natural law/principle of "uniformitarianism". Unless God (Creator) speaks directly to man through revelation, inspiration, or through a modern-day Moses type prophet -- man is left to witness through reason and logic the manifestation of the Creator's hand by observing nature to find what is absolute amidst the flux. Philosophy, in order to be philosophy, needs to have two voices: (1) the inquisitor that seeks to test the bounds of thought and create new ideas and is always questioning, and (2) the practical creature of rational who is able to lock these ideas into certain bounds by testing them against other hypothesis in his quest to always find. Ideology, however, is the death of philosophy. Once man accepts a thing as an absolute, without ever questioning it again, he has transitioned from philosopher to ideologue. Ideology has two voices: (1) the missionary of purposed truth who claims to have the unquestioned absolute, and (2) the skeptic who believes that all pertinent and necessary truth is either revealed, and that basically every good idea -- if it was a good idea -- has already been created. A philosopher never wishes to be called an ideologue, not unless he was extremely cocky and wanted to the whole world to intentionally know that unequivocal absolutism was alive and well and that his group was in custody of it. Trouble is, the liberals have screwed things up just as much as the conservatives (or, should I say, "Neo-conservatives"). No real use for finger pointing anymore, at least not this late in the game. If we want to find the guilty, we should really only look into a mirror, right?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." You can't be more open to the truth than that...

Unless you're talking about secession, right? Then you're a traitor (kinda like our founders). Yes, we need more debate and less arguing. It's been decades since I've seen a good political debate -- the sophistry that's spewed out by current politicians, left and right, is getting old.

The question has been raised: Why don't we just hang one public official at random in office per year? Just make it part of the job description. This way we attract the right kind of people into office (those who would live and die for their country), and we'd shorten the likelihood of bad politicians who jerk the public around. They could all draw in a raffle. Perhaps we could garner the type of men and women who would rather die for their country than the current politicians who feel more patriotic in sending some else over to fight their battles for them. Next time a politician wants to send us into a war, why don't they offer their own children to be in the first wave of ground infantry? Perhaps this could be yet another stipulation -- that way we could be better served by only entering "justifiable" wars.

Well said, Waffler. I would argue that natural law is not in fact the "survival of the fittest". The men who purported this idea in fact rejected "survival of the fittest" mentality as well. When first looking into the premise of natural law the student sees that in nature a lion will kill its prey without second thought (because of its hunger); afterward, the beginning student will then instantly transpose such action into human interaction, and will thus reason that such natural law is barbaric in a human-level systems of interaction. This, however, is not the case.

The difference between man and animal is that man has higher levels of logic, reasoning, and the ability of associating larger ideas together in ways to, as you said, "grasp big issues". This fact then takes man out of the survival of the fittest paradigm of what us humans see in nature around us; after all, it is only us humans that are reasoning the premise of nature -- the lions, tigers, birds, and wildlife do not meditate on such things -- and thus our interactions will be obviously different than those of the rest of the animal kingdom; man will not kill man simply for the reason of being hungry in nature, because he reasons and argues a higher purpose of interaction between each his associates.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment understood this when they sought to establish a government based on "the laws of nature and of Nature's God". They certainly weren't advocating the law of the fittest, in giving us this government, nor were they interested in giving us a monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc. (these all being systems of government that would follow the "survival of the fittest" paradigm).

Throughout history, peoples of nations have been swayed by knee-jerk politicians who seek to bend public sentiment to their policies; majority only systems have historical not lasted more than 200-400 years, because these political bodies have swayed the public out of their own ability to exercise their own rights through fear tactics of real and imaginary monsters that are slain through the process of the people "giving up" their freedom. Such systems have largely ended in tyrannies, because the majority figured it could do whatever it wanted (by virtue of being the majority) over the rest of the people in "giving" government powers that it had no "natural" ability/right of giving to government.

This is the argument of de facto over de jure government. While government may exercise power, it doesn't mean that such power is legitimate -- even if it was condoned by the majority. As you've said, "Democracy" is not a completely natural process -- nor is probably any of man's established government. All government therefore is arbitrary, is it not?

The founders of this nation were not gods, they were not infallible, but after giving their lives to the cause of freedom these intelligent men certainly didn't want to haphazardly throw a government together that wouldn't last. I would argue that none of us here on this blog have ever so well left their own ideology behind to look through history to see things for how they actually happened as did our founders; after pledging their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" they took as clear a look as man can make though history to find what worked and what didn't. Democracy (absolute majority rule systems) hadn't proved themselves to work as well as they sought, nor did they want to follow the course of many of the Republics throughout history (Rome, for instance, because they wanted to keep vouchsafe individual freedom and liberty).

Republics differed through history not only by their mechanical operation, but by the premise of the laws in which they enacted -- some Republics, while all operated on "law", established their laws according to what the elite or those in power stated. The Roman Republic originally based its laws on the "divine" edicts of Caesar where you didn't have any rights unless Caesar said you did (hardly a system of government the founders wanted to follow).

Our founders, in essence, instead of giving the body politic the power to enact "rights", established and gave that the "Creator" was the giver of rights; thus bypassing man's ability to exercise illegitimate control over his neighbor -- this then ties the hands of government to never step outside the bounds of what the "Creator" has enacted. Since we cannot "know" the mind of the Creator, we are only left to seeing the manifestation of his creation and how we fit into it through reason and logic in observing nature.

As stated, man has the highest ability of logic and reason, and is therefore responsible to act accordingly in a "state of nature" -- man, naturally, will not be found to live therefore in the paradigm of survival of the fittest. How then do you form a government where the people would adhere to natural laws, where the power would ultimately find its power and legitimacy in the people, and where the rights of the majority, minority, and individual would always be vouchsafe and protected -- regardless of swaying and knee-jerk politicians?

Majority rule only systems had not proven themselves to have kept these three things vouchsafe before, why would our founders want to establish a system that had no proven longevity? Republics, however, as the likes of Machiavelli describes, were proven to last for 500-800 years. Why did Republics have a better longevity? It was a totally new idea to form a Republic (arbitrary system) according to a premise of natural laws (absolute and eternal). This is not tyrannical, dictatorial, or evil; this is brilliant and amazing!

When government operates on the premise of natural law, this opens and allows society to promote their own ideas. This allows the media to take any position it wants to, because the government cannot then punish the media for being "heretical", "sacrilegious", or wrong. The people are free, the media is free, the very existence of all life is then free to move and act -- not because the majority said so, but because the government acknowledges that the people are free because a "Creator" has given them their rights.

If the established premise of government is that people receive their rights from their "Creator" (as opposed to the government -- which had been the premise of every other Republic and other system of government), and if the only way we can see the will of the Creator is to reason so by observing nature, and since man has the heightened ability of logic, reason, and power of association to "grasp big issues", then we can form a government wherein man exists in peace with his neighbor and nature to never be threatened or coerced by usurpation and tyranny -- of a majority (usually caused through the excitement of party politics) or of an assuming monarch, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.

Once a system of government shifts towards a party politic mindset (as the founders warned against once we were given our form of government), this allows the market to be filled with media sources that merely promote each sides' usually de facto view, instead of purporting a more substantial de jure view of society and government.

As a people, we used to ask ourselves whether a law was legitimate in keeping with the principles of a de jure system, but today -- because of many reasons, such as party politics -- the people do not view legitimacy of government as being in line with de jure principles, but only in what one side can overcome on the other side.

Can the Republicans screw the other side faster, or can the Democrats screw the other side faster. Obviously, each side honestly only wants to help, but perhaps we can assume that the "truth" of what should be cannot possibly be held between only two parties. Media promotes this dichotomy of de facto ideas because this is their source of revenue.

Is there a "reality" in what they're speaking? Yes, there is a game played that is very real in a government operating under de facto laws, and this game is what we see everyday on FOXNews, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or in US News and World Reports, TIME, etc. Who actually asks anymore whether a law is legitimate? The people don't, and even watchdog groups, such as the ACLU, have stated that they have a certain agenda in their endeavors.

While I support a few particular actions of these watchdog groups, I disagree with their basic premise, because none of them operate on securing inalienable right as given by a Creator. This is the main reason I reject the major media for any real substance; while they may report accurately for their chosen political side, these media moguls have rejected to report on anything more than "the game".

Why do I go to scholastic papers for information before major media? Is there no bias in scholastic papers? Absolutely there is bias in these papers, but there is still a standard in the scholastic world wherein we still adhere to a large extent on certain absolutes (such as what our Republic was to be built on) in accepting or rejecting certain hypothesis.

There is no absolute in government anymore; both political sides are to blame. The media does not report on what is independently right or wrong, but the major media only really focuses anymore on the rightness of their side and the wrongness of the other. This is far from the brilliant ideas and philosophies that made America great.

..laughs. Waffler, I enjoy your multiple posts -- as though you get quick bursts of intellectual profundity. Your definition of the founders being "Aristocrats" is laughable -- sounds like you heard it on a book presentation on CPAN 2 (which I actually enjoy watching myself, but always with a grain of salt). Not all the founders were wealthy, only an obvious handful of them were -- and the vast majority of these obtained their own wealth (as opposed to receiving title from Britain or from a parent).

If you think an Aristocracy just means that the rulers are among the financial and hereditary elite, then you have to accept that we're living in one now (or as much now as there was an aristocracy then). Secondly, I think it's quite entertaining how you've finally conceded that the founders were not "Democratically minded" (except for "maybe one honest...man"). Only "one" honest man? Very interesting. Thirdly, I don't know where you get your "Hitler and Nazi" associations from -- especially towards the libertarian minded folks on this blog. I've only ever talked of individual freedom, responsibility, and accountability,

in dictating the sentiments of the founders were wished to establish a government wherein the power and legitimacy would be granted by the people in accordance with "law". I guess we could argue what "law" was, but it was not simply "what the majority wished, wanted, or voted it to be". There are laws that exist outside of any man's scope, and these are the laws that we were to hold ourselves to.

Is this tyrannous? Unless you think that nature is tyranny, then, well, no, it's not. But such thought is only based on an amateur look at life and the structure of this Earth's existence.

What is nature? This is the very sentiment that such men like Thoreau wished to find when he sought out to find that which was life, to live deep, and "suck out all the marrow of life" -- to know things for how they were naturally, not how many had socially defined them.

This is the essence of the libertarian thought: to seek truth independently and not through the rose colored glasses of society's fads, traditions, and crazes. While the will of the majority will always change in accordance to these fads, traditions, and crazes, natural laws are absolute, unchanging, and everlasting.

When society chooses to live in a paradigm against natural law, this does not change natural law but merely shifts society in a de facto regime. While the majority may choose that genocide (rape, infringement on liberty, etc.) is okay -- and though they may be able to enforce this -- such does not constitute legitimacy.

When an individual independently chooses to live in a paradigm of natural law, then he does not have to be a "Hitler and Nazi" faction, because the person who adheres to natural law can allow all man's liberty in expression -- regardless of how ignorant, swayed, or capitulated the individual may be. The media plays a big part of this, as a few corporate moguls sway news to be in line with public sentiment -- this is merely the business of the media.

What money would the media make it if gave "truth" that not only the majority had rejected, but largely society has a whole?

..laughs.. Of all the political journals I've read, the classes I have ever been in or taught, the peer reviewed papers I've gone through... and to know now that the only source I needed to understand the nuances and internal politics of nations was to read Time Magazine. You mean I've been missing out on this unbiased news source all along? To think, that I didn't really HAVE to think -- I just had to read Time.