Redefinition can be a form of suppressed words. Words are only tools to define and associate ideas; if you take an idea out of a society by redefining the word that such an idea is connect to, that idea is lost forever to time unless you find another word to use in its place to define the same concept. It is exceptionally hard for government to become tyrannical when the PEOPLE adhere not to a mere "majority vote", but to natural laws (laws that exist in nature). It is not convenient for government to continually be having to check themselves against natural law. When government (which is really just a select group of individuals) seeks to do things outside their bounds, even though they be sincere in their endeavor to do good things, natural law prohibits them from legitimately doing it. Now, any government can set up a de facto regime and rule is a tyrannical fist -- even if that tyrannical fist comes in the form of a usurping majority -- but such does not constitute true legitimacy of laws or of government. If we construct a government upon the mere principle of majority rule absolutely, we condone such deplorable actions of gang rape. Many of us have written "books" on this subject here on these blog pages -- we've used many, many, many words to define a system, concept, and idea of government wherein the founders merely had to pen a guarantee to a "Republican form of government" (US Constitution Article IV Section 4). Now that terms and definitions have changed, we now have to be overly verbose in once again introducing the ideas and philosophies of our founders. Suppression of a language is indeed very dangerous, as is the intentional redefinition of language.

Well said RKA. Apparently there isn't as much acid in the water in Wasilla as there is in Fort Smith, AK. Must be a city thing.

Well, at least we now know Waffler's true feelings to the men who founded our nation. Everything makes sense now -- we can now understand why Waffler makes so many ad hominem arguments (such as his above post), he can't differentiate the message from the messenger. Fallacy thy name is Waffler. I agree with Archer.

Kevin, the "Liberal Congress" has only been in power for the last two years. It was actually a "Conservative Congress" who gave us the Patriot Act 1 and 2, Military Commissions Act, Real I.D., Intelligence Bill, torture allowances, etc. Sure, the "liberals" may have done some bad stuff, but our current problems over the last 8 years have come from our Conservative side (I say this as a self-professed "Conservative" -- although I deplore the neo-conservative fascism that's rampant in our current society. I suggest you look into it and find out how bad it is for yourself).

Waffler, don't be stupid. You and I both know that I never capitulated to your ideology. Do we vote? Yes. Does this make us a "Democracy"? No! Does the Congress vote? Yes. Does this in itself make us a Democracy? NO! How many times do we have to go over this? Majority vote is not even half the equation into establishing legitimate government that can secure longevity in protecting the expression of inalienable liberty. Our Constitution only originally allowed that the House of Representatives would be voted in by the people -- HARDLY a "Democracy"; the Senate was appointed by the States, the President was appointed by the electoral college, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President and voted in by the Senate. What other federal government positions are there? You're only talking about 1/4 the government ever being voted in by the "people". Interesting, no? That a Constitution established by "We the People" would consist of a government wherein the "people" would only ever be directly involved in voting in a quarter of the government representatives? HARDLY a "Democracy". Now, as I HAVE ACTUALLY STATED -- our nation has come a long way from actually being the Republic we were meant to be into becoming a Democracy, but we were not originally created as such. How can you justify that every member of the Constitutional Convention specifically deplored and hated "Democracy" and sought diligently to successfully create a system of government wherein the people would ultimately direct their government without having an established "Democracy". I don't have to reason this fact of history away, because I can accept things for how they ARE and not how I wish they were or had been. BTW, you're the one that said "Fuck Democracy" (and I don't even have to put words in your mouth, that's an exact quote). You and I both know that I've taken that out of context -- but at least I'm honest about it. Don't try and win supporters by being dishonest Waffler, if you can't win the debate by reason, logic, philosophy, ideology, or words -- don't become a liar to try to win a point. No one here is fooled. Several people here, ad nauseam, have told you how the government operates as it does without it being a "Democracy" (hell, we've been doing this for over a year now). So, that's yet another lie that we have yet to do this.

I actually agree with you on something, I'm not fond of Palin -- nor of McCain for that matter (I think they're warmongers. I think about as much of them as I do of Bush family, the Clintons, Gore, or Obama). Oversight (which I think is a good word for the situation) of the majority is the exact reason why legitimacy should not simply rest on the majority's consent. Democracies lead to group-think if the citizenry lends itself to the ideology that whatever they decide is the establishment of legitimacy. When the majority falls into this pattern, as history has shown they always do, the majority of people go along with whatever the political establishment deems is necessary, because the people naively believe that government has the majority's consent; this means that the road to lost liberty is not usually because of the proactive tenacity of the people, but because of the apathetic group-think that comes to a people who allows government to rob them of their rights because they think their neighbors are also in agreement with this. However, if the mindset of the people is focused on individual and inalienable rights, then the people are far less likely to be hoodwinked by a Hitleresque regime (not much unlike the Bush regime) and simply kowtow to what they perceive is the majority's consent, because they can reason and adhere to principle instead of relying on the facade of the majority's consent. A society focused on individuality does not discredit a government "of, by, and for the people" -- it only serves to enhance it.

Good phrase, "you rule yourself and choose your representatives in council". Very well said Archer, thank you. The greatness of our founders, strengths in a select and small group of men, was that they looked throughout history to see the patterns that existed in every culture and civilization. Do cultures change? Yes. Do civilizations change? Do threats change? Yes. Are there absolutes that will forever be? Absolutely! I need food to live, water to drink, and air to breath -- the founder's resolved and reasoned the liberty was as universal and as eternal as the need for these elements of life. Each generation is epochcentrist in their time, but only the naive and ignorant use epochcentrism to rewrite history, because such people do not understand the patterns of history wherein the founders truly were educated and knowledgeable to see the principles of liberty that transcend epochcentrism. This is yet another reason why they deplored Democracy and sought to establish a government on eternal absolutes and natural law, wherein the majority would find more longevity in adhereing to nature than simply to epochcentrist group-think in continuing a society of manifest liberty and freedom.

Excellent, Archer. It's too bad that Waffler not only doesn't adhere to the philosophy of our founders, but he tries to reinvent what they've had to say -- even when what he's spewing was never mentioned in the time and place wherein the founders lived. The ideas they purported and the words they used to him mean nothing, for whatever reason, to understanding this glorious country we have been given. He's caught up in his own "truthiness" and "wikiality", because apparently to him, truth is only what the majority claims it to be (though he's often wrong on this as well -- something with the way he always says EVERYONE thinks this, or SOCIETY thinks that).

Jefferson did indeed talk about a type of free education, but we must never be so naive as to think that even the term "liberal" hasn't changed in over two hundred years. Yes, our founders were considered "liberal" -- more so in the now internationally used context of the word (international liberals are more aligned to current American conservatives). The problem is, modern day "conservatives" aren't really conservatives anymore. This damn new neo-conservative ideology that's swept the American right over the last 4 decades is absolutely hideous! It's ignorant to force the founders into modern definitions of "conservative" or "liberal", because truth is both sides have ventured so far off what this nation was founded on that neither side can legitimately, philosophically, or ideologically claim the absolute doctrines of our founders anymore. Both sides have some great points, while in other ideas they miss the entire concept.

..LAUGHS.. Waffler, how do you possibly get "Heil" out of anything I've ever stated? They droppin' some acid in the water over there in Arkansas? I'm not the one who accepts a foundation of government that legitimizes the Hutu/Tutsi genocide; of anyone, it's me that should be accusing you of your Hitleresque tactics and ideology. How do you think the German people got to where they did in accepting -- or even allowing -- Hitler? They were in a massive state of group-think wherein each individual just capitulated to what they perceived was the majority -- which actually kinda was because everyone basically went along with it even if they didn't agree with it -- which is exactly how you think, talk, and probably act. This is rock solid history, we read it in college history books all the time -- or at least I do -- I'm not fully convinced you read much other than these blogs. Should they have had or been educated in the principles of a Constitutional Republic (as opposed to many other types of Republics) that was fashioned on an outside reasoned list of laws that exist in nature, they would have seen past Hitler's facade and millions wouldn't have died. Instead, the individuality of Hitler's Germany was dummied down so much that the people kowtowed because they figured the government could do anything it wanted to so long as it had majority consent, and since the government was automatically doing something (mass genocide) it MUST have had the majority's consent. Historically, we know that, in fact, the majority would not have condoned such actions -- but it is written into the annals of history that such Democracy group-think made the people so damned stupid that they never individually stood up against the evil likes of Hitler -- I mean, if everyone was going along with it... it wasn't really SO bad, was it? So why don't you come goose-steppin' over here to my side of the river, it's not quite that bad over here -- we can throw a bratwurst on the grill.

I'll accept differences of opinion, so long as these opinions are well founded in reality instead of "wikiality"; otherwise, I find it amusing to put stupidity in its place. I find myself disagreeing with the foundations of many of Robert's comments, but at least he has a semblance of an argument and I can respect his conclusions based on his premise (although, as said, I may disagree with his premise). I don't mind people having a difference of opinion, or even some levels of ignorance. The problem is that ignorance usually has the loudest mouth while usually having the least to say. Truth can explain every facet of life -- when there comes a question that cannot be reasoned or explained in such a way as to cause "predictability", the personal philosophy must be reexamined. Sadly, ideology takes over the pursuit of philosophy as the ignorant yokel finally gives up seeking for truth for the mere endeavor of finding followers. When someone cannot answer the questions posed but seeks to side-skirt the issue at hand, philosophy is dead and ideology reigns supreme. I have posed many, many, many questions on this blog wherein some cannot answer the exact questions posed -- such is a sad case and prime example of ideology. Censorship comes in many forms, and can also be found in the redefining of terms and ideas throughout history.

Ha Ha, Waffler, thanks for the laugh... You have to adhere to a modern-day sophist to rely for your asinine ideology. Absolutely hilarious! Too bad you can't produce any founders to "opts fo the D word".

Forster is an interesting case, but I agree with the quote. Censorship comes in many forms, even in the form of lost freedoms for perceived safety as the transparency of government gives way to tyranny.

Yeah, Archer, you tyrannical bastard! How dare you preach individual freedom, accountability, and education wherein the masses (as a collection of individuals) should adhere to a reasoned codex of laws, rules, and regulations in deciding how to fulfill its operations justly, legitimately, and rightfully to the individual and society! How dare you, you "goose stepper", speak against a debased currency and property violating taxations! How can you bear to sleep with yourself at night? You should know that freedom only comes through the collective, that resistance is futile, and that you WILL be assimilated! How dare you, you traitor, adhere to the doctrines and philosophies of our founders! Damn you, sir! = )

Oh, and Waffler, since you've brought it up again ("It is majority rule for me"), can you please explain how -- as you supposedly are all for majority rule all of the time -- you would tell such heroes as Paul Rusesabagina why you support the massacre of the Hutu coming against and killing 77% of the Tutsi population within his country and the genocide that followed? Geeze, talk about "protection of the majority" for the minority. Majority rule all of the time? What is your legitimacy number then for the majority to legally, morally, legitimately, or ethically vote to rape a women, kill a child, or cause genocide among large portions of its people? If mere majority vote is your only stipulation for legitimacy, it appears you're the one that's... well... screwed.

..laughs.. Wow, Waffler... "fuck democracy"? I never thought I'd live to see you say it. Good call Archer, but Waffler perhaps will never understand how society can operate while keeping the rights of the individual in tact, and what it actually takes to actually keep both a society and the individual free at the same time. Is this a battle of semantics? Not really. Why? Because a few of us here have diligently sought to understand the ideas behind what the founder's actually wanted to perpetuate, and afterwards we have looked at current trends today to see how -- because of the change of words -- society has redefined its own history. The why and how society would do this is another story, but such is the cycle of history. Should we just "go along to get along" when we see history repeating itself towards the destruction of the rights of the individual and the eventual destruction of our society? We're arguing ideas, but we have to argue ideas through words -- that's the tool of our operation. When terms are redefined from their original meanings, what words are currently used to replace those old meanings? Either there are words to replace them, or these ideas are lost to time. Long live the Republic, and everything the founder's defined it to be.

Man is a stubborn thing, especially in ignorance (an ignorant person never wishes to be considered ignorant, especially when he has never had an education in the matters wherein he speaks -- formally or informally). When the freedom of expressing one's liberty without recourse is held up as a standard to the people, the small spark of freedom ignites and becomes a flash and flame that burns true in the hearts of any man or women who has declared their own personal independence from usurpation and tyranny. This spark, if allowed to grow, will become a wild-fire wherein no government can usurp and illegitimately control its populace. Liberty grants wisdom its place in society, and welcomes logic of reasoned dissent in all places man may improve himself to produce more freedom in expressing each individual's liberty.

This freedom is most important, that freedom is most important -- how is it that we can categorically assume what freedom is the most important? We can show cause and correlation factors all day long, but in the end the assumption is basically arbitrary. This said, I would consider the freedom of the press to be perhaps one of the first and foremost battlegrounds for safeguarding the rest, because once this freedom is squelched -- who will be a whistle-blower to the rest of the lost freedoms? Thomas Paine awoke an apathetic America through the press, perhaps it is the press today that is making America apathetic once again.

While the government may indoctrinate me through public education (government curriculum being used as a tool of 21st Century sophistry), government will only ever take control of what I think -- but never that I actually think at all (unless they kill me). Even if government legislated against thought itself, which is very unthoughtful, I would continue to think. The expression of such thought, however, is where freedom comes into play. I have the liberty to think, act, and reason as one specifically stated "inalienable" right, but I may not always have the physical ability or freedom of expressing my liberty (such case would be tyranny -- either through a monarch, the majority, or any other means or ways). Unless we are protected and have the freedom to express our inalienable liberty, we are slaves (Interesting our current president who limits dissenting speech to quarantined protest areas -- gee thanks for allowing the freedom of dissent -- I guess that's okay, how many people really use their inalienable rights anyway?).

I'd like to find in any political governing documents wherein it declares we are a Democracy. Where did the founder's say we were an expressed "Democracy"? Oh, wait, our founder's expressly deplored "Democracy". If Democracies and Republics can exist at the same time, then why did Aristotle argue the way he did? What did Machiavelli actually mean then when he condemned Democracies and glorified in publicly elected representatives in a Republic? Geeze... Read history, get an education, go to school, give it a rest, get a life, move on!

Well stated Archer.

Virgil, no?

Who grants liberty? Does government grant liberty? You can believe this, but the consequences of such belief have been shown historically to be disastrous to liberty. As I stated, government is merely a conglomerate of men and women acting in a specified office. Are these few men and women the "givers" of liberty? How did they get such a universal deified title? Our Declaration of Independence (the founding document OF personal independence) states that rights stem from a "Creator". Are we then to suppose that our government is that Creator? That men and women, once they have the "approval" of the masses, they assume a godly role to dole out privilege, license, liberty, freedom, or self-accountability? There are stories of holocaust victims who accepted that the German's force over them took away their liberty -- while there are a handful of stories that have come through of men who took an individually independent stand in how they looked at their captors. These few men realized that there was one basic fundamental portion of existence the German's could not attack: the way they choose to think and feel in any given circumstance. These heroes of the Holocaust understood what our founders did -- that liberty is not a thing to be granted or taken away by men, but is a natural entity that exists within the heart of any man or women willing to accept it. While man may use coercion and limit the movement of the individual, man cannot take away what nature has given by way of a Creator. We fight for liberty and freedom, because we acknowledge that there are some basic fundamental aspects of our existence as Creatures of nature that are worth more than our life -- and that limitations in expression of these liberties will not be accepted or tolerated -- by our lives, they are not.

I wouldn't seek to categorize liberty, such seems to belittle it. It is much easier to define and understand the simplicity of liberty when applied and defined as the universal constant that it is. While I agree with the quote, I only give it 3 stars for the compartmentalization of liberty.

"Unlimited Liberty"? That phrase is an oxymoron. I do not have the "liberty" of murdering, raping, pillaging, or plundering -- although I may have the forceful ability. Liberty is a reasoned state of existence that those who came out of the age of the Enlightenment believed was a natural endowment upon the individual simply because they existed. I have the "liberty" of everything wherein I can express my life, liberty, and property so long as I do not infringe upon the rights of another. That is the absolute and most basic fundamental building block of the great American experiment: can man be left alone, without coercion, regulation, or license to be self-governing? Can man be trusted? This brings up the most basic question known in the philosophical world: Is man basically evil or good? Depending on how you answer this question, depends on how you would respond to man's basic goodness or evilness -- but how many of us want to only "live that which is life" and find out the goodness and evilness of life for ourselves? Absolute stupidity among some of these bloggers to redefine the way things only appear today to conclude a concrete sentiment on what yesterday's ideas were -- such a basic flaw amidst the ignorant who have never studied any of the social sciences. Take a different approach -- disagree with us "unlimited liberty enthusiasts" (whatever this is supposed to mean) who are so "naive about how life really is" -- but don't be so damn foolish in expressing utter stupidity by rewriting history and yesterday's thoughts and language to support your theories of how today IS or SHOULD be. Reject the philosophy of America's foundations, but don't rewrite it -- let it stand boldly and nobly for what is was, and then educate and express yourself to build a better tomorrow (even if you completely reject their philosophy -- that's FINE!). Such a rejection of history is saddening, especially since it is very well accepted in scholastic circles to be happening at an alarming pace in this country. Government is simply a conglomerate of men who make decisions for the rest -- it is not an abstract power entity that can do whatever it wants so long as it gets approval by the majority. If a government is supposedly derived from the people, wherein the people delegate their right of representation to a delegated person -- that person cannot assume a power over what the people can individually grant him (such would be usurpation and tyranny). Though this happens (representatives assuming a right wherein their constituents had no ability of granting him powers to act), this does not mean that such actions of usurpation constitute legitimacy in government. In a Democracy, where does the legitimacy/right of the individual come from (the founding fathers for example) to stand up against the army/government/supporter majority to say "no, you cannot do this to me... I do not care who you are or what you think you are entitled to! I am a freeman, and this violates my inalienable, Creator given, rights"? There is none, because if the majority had anything to say about it they would simply vote away any perceived right. As has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote". Although we DO act according to the voice of the people, the inalienable rights of the one outweigh the overreaching grasp of a usurping majority. Freedom to move and act exists in nature -- it is a natural coinsurance that takes man's overreaching despotism to seek to hinder.