HA HA!! Waffler, you make me laugh. This flies in the face of absolute "Democracy"! What a brilliant statement by an amazing mind. Long live our Republic. There is no contradiction -- the government to be governed by the voice of the people, except in cases that would violate the rights of the minority -- this is NOT Democracy (Because Democracy has no legitimate bounds to protect minorities, because Democracy's are only worried about majority rule absolutely!). 10 Stars.

Interesting takes on the quote everyone. Rights are either inalienable or alienable. If we are endowed by our "Creator" with rights (however you define or deem a "Creator" figure), then they are inalienable; if man (government) gives us our rights, then they are alienable. It's not a hard concept to understand: Force does not equal legitimacy or sovereignty. Whether man's government accepts or impedes upon natural inalienable right is a matter of what form of government society wants. Just because a society may choose to reject the forces of gravity, does not mean that gravity does not exist -- gravity being a constant in nature. Just because governments may forcefully restrain inalienable rights, this does not mean that such rights have been "alienated" -- it simply means that such government is tyrannical and has forcefully rejected the protection of nature's gift of freedom. This does not alter, abolish, or alienate the inalienable; however, tyrannical government DOES reduce the ability of expressing such natural and inalienable rights. If we were to say that government grants natural rights, then we'd assume the postulate that simply by Congress mandating it -- children would instantly suffocate should Congress enact a law against children breathing! Such is utter stupidity. However, a government may send enforcers out to personally restrict the breathing of children to accomplish its goals. The concept is not hard to understand, common people -- don't be sheeple. As for Reagan, he's a bit to epochcentrist for me -- every generation has faced its monsters that want to disregard inalienable freedoms for some type of perceived security. Our generation simply plays off the one before it, as the following generations will play off us.

Yes, but what are the postulates wherein each philosopher deemed it legitimate to "crush the infamous thing"? The process leading up to the event is as important, if not more so, than the actual event of revolution itself.

What good are laws and statutes to protect liberty and freedom if, when they are less convenient, they are no longer recognized? The beauty of the Declaration of Independence is that certain men stood up and simply declared their independence by placing themselves under the "laws of nature and of nature's God". If you want to be free, live free -- this is what THEY did. Stand in fast in your natural liberty wherein the God of nature, your Creator, has made you free (however you deem or define that Creator to be), and never let an earthly master usurp power over you to bind you down into slavery.

Nature's forces have the same influence upon us whether we examine them or not. Just how it is that we act according to nature’s influence is anything but standard. I can reject the stipulation that gravity has any force on me – this doesn’t change gravity’s influence, but may change my patterns of behavior as an ignoramus. How do we live in a state of nature? As the only perceived creatures on the earth having the excelled ability of reason and logic, we have the unique ability of living our own realities. Liberty is as standard in nature as is the air we breathe; however, how we act in relation to this will vary. Can Congress, by virtue of being the established legitimate legislating body enact and pass a law against children breathing? Sure they can. Congress can legislate all day long; however, children will still continue to breathe. What government CAN do, however, is to forcefully send out an enforcer to physically suffocate children to death. This is the difference between a government who understands the philosophy behind structuring a political system based on natural laws, and a government who believes that what is "natural" is only that which can be enforced. As if force is itself a standard of legitimacy. Lippmann's view of Socrates' words is open for debate; Socrates may be also interpreted to mean that man, as the only perceived creature existent with heightened abilities of logic, reason, and rhetoric, should make use of those faculties wherein he has been given.

Thoreau, one of my favorites.

Beautiful!

Ah, the Bushs and the Clintons equally eroded our freedoms -- The Bush admin couldn't have done what they did without building on the Clinton admin. When lobbyist groups show up at both party conventions -- while supporting, funding, promoting, and chanting for both sides -- something is terribly wrong in this country. Democracts and Republicans today are merely two sides of the same coin of usurpation and tyranny.

As a person who actually has read and studied at least SOME philosophy (as he IS a "philosophical essayist" we can assume that he has actually read SOME philosophy), he is simply restating the age old question posed by Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Calvin, Luther, Hume, Burk, Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, Stewert, etc.: When is it legitmate for the people to revolt against the government or monarch, and establish new leadership/government? Several (but not all) of these philosophers stated that it is never right to revolt, especially if the person revolting would enslave the people further than the previous ruler and is thereby merely revolting for more personal power. If it is revolution that exists within the heart, then it must be free from personal power and despotism. One of the only examples of this in history is that of George Washington: a man who lead an army to overthrow despotism without himself becoming a despot. The quote is a "yeah, duh" quote: if you're going to overthrow a despot, just make sure you don't make one of yourself in the process.

Tis true -- even in the face of mountains of evidence otherwise.

..laughs.. Waffler, your verbal fallacies know no bounds, do they? There is perhaps no greater ignorant fallacy than to use a scarecrow argument to try to promote your side. You continually try to pigeon-hole everyone who shows your philosophy as an ignorant sham into some socially deplorable niche. Nice try though. You don't need my permission to have your liberty to make ignorant and unfounded comments (which you take the liberty of making daily), because that is your right naturally as a creature of nature. I have battled your stupidity from day one, because your philosophy is flawed, convoluted, and void of historical fact. Archer has only ever talked about returning to the previously held verbiage of our founders, and has rejected -- as have I -- the currently defined definitions of words and their meanings. Why do we reject the current definitions and seek to adhere to our foundations? Because we seek for ways to let liberty and freedom naturally work in society and have actually read the words of those who have gone before us that have used logic, reasoning, and history to establish a "predictable pattern" (the goal of all social sciences) of government and social behavior. Waffler, instead, is caught up in the modern day sophistry of his contemporaries who are either ignorant of their predecessors or have devilishly turned a blind eye to them to establish their own schemes. It is a shame to repeat the stupidity of history if we can possibly avoid it -- and there are blatant examples of history wherein the authorities of philosophy (Machiavelli and our founders, for instance) rejected and vocally despised many forms of government (Democracies and Monarchies, for example) while promoting others (Constitutional Republics, for yet another example). Their words on the matter are nearly endless and cannot be written away. In our age of the written word, aside from book burning and total censorship, there is no way to etch away the words of our founder's ideas -- but there IS a way to redefine these words through government endorsed education towards a government endorsed end of political understanding (the fear of a freeman in receiving government sponsored education). Out of reason and logic, tested and tried by the blood and sacrifice of patriots, we were given a government that could transcend mobocracy and monarchy rule, while maintaining a government as constituted by the people in and through natural and de jure laws. If such adherence to the masterful philosophy of our founders makes me a Manchurian, steeped in the language and brainwashing of their ideas, learning, and acceptances -- then, yes, I am guilty and stand honored to be such an American.

Funny, Waffler, how you've stated that you do not wish to be talked to directly on an issue, but yet you're the one who keeps bringing the issue up. How childish are you? Well said, Mike. People whose thoughts are locked into ignorant idealogy that rejects historical significance are controlled by the "wikiality" of the "truthiness" around them. So long as enough people agree with you, you must be right -- eh, Waffy-boy? All these types of ignorance jack asses jump on the bandwagon of some authority figure's usage of words and definitions to redefine history of their own terms (Waffy's use of McCain, Bush, and others who promote "Democracy" in a previous post). Idiots all. Ironically, Waffler has yet to provide a quote from a founding father who promoted "Democracy" -- but I digress. These modern day tories are traitors to lady liberty -- they seek to license and regulate freedom into existence, because they do not realize that liberty, freedom, and agency eternally exist in a state of nature and that it is man that skrews this all up with his mob mentality of majority morality. Liberty, freedom, and agency existed before government. The great American Experience was not about a democratic movement, but upon the trust of the individual to be individually decent to another human being without being coerced, and to establish a government to keep it's damn grubby fingers out of the people's lives in matters that didn't pertain to the furthering of life, liberty, or property of the individual (not the masses) -- and that government stayed the hell out of our lives in all cases wherein the individual's rights were not infringed. While Waffler always talks about how great, grand, and trustworthy his neighbors are -- it is Waffler that purports regulating, licensing, and coercing his neighbors by joining his mob majority in agreeing to enact laws against the inalienable liberty OF his neighbor. Idiot. Of all people, it is Mike who has given the greatest amount of trust to the people, while holding the grubby politician's feet to the fire of our Constitutional Republic that operates on natural law. While some people trust the people while curtailing the government (Mike and Archer), some people trust the government and despise the individual liberty of the individual citizens (Waffler).

I don't know of only "10" (95%) scientists that are questioning the claims and "science" behind C02 global warming, but I do know of "over 400" (many who have actually worked for the UN IPCC), as reported by the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that "debunk" the "consensus" story that is supposedly held among all the world's prominent scientists. Further research provides that more and more prominent scientists have been wanting to criticize the theory/"science" behind man made/CO2 global warming, but have feared loosing their jobs and careers; this is especially so, because most of these scientists operate/work under some bureaucratic instillation of state run programs in their country, and going against the political establishment's agendas adds a political factor/fear previously thought void in the wide world of science. It appears that even today there are some arguing that the world is flat (that the earth is heating due to man made C02 emissions), and any opponents who say otherwise are politically condemned. I'll provide the link, once again: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Very well said Archer

Since you continually bring it up Waffler, you're the one that cannot bridge the founder's contempt of Democracy with their established form of government, as you're a deceitful hack who cannot let go of his prideful ignorance even when truth is presented over and over and over again -- as we have all given you plenty of sources wherein you can plainly see the change in words over the last 200 years.

Waffler, I know it's hard, but don't be stupid -- and don't misrepresent what Mike and I have said (however, I'll let Mike speak for himself in the matter if he wants to). Do we do things by a majority? Typically, yes. What majority do you speak of Waffler? The President is not elected on a popular "majority" vote -- and the "people" did not originally "vote" for their Senators (the States did). This itself violates your damn theories of a Democracy. How dense are you? Seriously... No one has ever stated that we do not do things by the actions of a majority -- but if the equation stopped here, then you'd be right. You, however, are not right, because you totally miss the other half of the political equation -- the half that states that while the majority may rule in certain matters, there is a reasoned area wherein the majority may not rule. How many times do we have to say this? You may have a difference of opinion, although your spewing of words to try to expound on what you THINK I have said shows not merely a difference of a opinion, but of dishonest stupidity. I enjoy the banter. It's entertaining. Watching you try to piece together history is like watching the Titanic sink over and over and over again... As I've said before, it's morbidly fascinating. Just because I think you're an ignorant hack doesn't mean that I don't like you. I like reading everyone's comments on this page, although I miss Reston's comments -- at least he was a socialist who had some reason and some logic to back his theories... I agree with Archer though, I can now see the wisdom in the quote -- some people just can't see the wisdom of living free and establishing understandings wherein they all agree the majority has no power to infringe.

Ah, that we would consistently define terms -- but such in the catastrophe of language.

Rather shallow of you to put all your faith and stock in a mere quote, Waffler, without taking a long look at Jefferson's entire collection of thoughts, words, and philosophies. You were addressing me in your previous comment, so you were at least somewhat interested in what I had to say -- even if to counteract it. I happen to think you're an ignorant hack, but I will admit that I do find it interesting to see what new sophistry you'll spew every day. It's a morbid fascination, I know -- kind of like how someone can't look away when coming up to an automobile accident. Open up your mind Waffler, and maybe some of this stuff we're talking about will sink in.

Waffler, you have proven nothing with your quotes from Jefferson -- and you missed what I was saying. You should probably actually read what Hume was proposing and not merely assume that you understand based off Jefferson's quote before you try to link me to him. Hume had a lot of good things to say, but Jefferson is right. You have yet to bridge the gap between the founder's contempt of "Democracy" and their desire to establish a government wherein the people may choose their course in government. No, the minority will not rule in our Republic (aristocracy or oligarchy), nor would it be prudent to have an individual ruler (monarch or dictator), but, as we have all said ad nauseam that this is only half the equation. Man is free in nature, and therefore, he is free period (this is inalienable; although, he may be forced against his freedom by an assuming and an usurping force of greater number or power). The specific affairs of government are done by a majority's consent, but only as long as they adhere to reason according to the freedom of the individual (this freedom being natural and inalienable). This does not mean, however, that the individual is in control is an authoritarian demigod. He simply exists, as do the individuals who make up "society". Jefferson, while promoting "majority rule" would never permit the group of individuals to assume some magical power of the individual to act in something that the collective of individuals had no right to do as mere individuals.

What if an educated society adhered and reasoned to the absolute laws of nature (that never change) and agreed to govern the rest of their exchanges, laws, and structures according to this exacting standard? What more permanent and enduring basis of government could there be? As cultures, ideas, philosophies, and circumstances change and happen, 1+1 will always equal 2 -- to establish a government on eternal absolutes is brilliant. In a free society, there is not always a fight between conformity and liberty, because the free "society" (if it can even be spoken of as its own separate entity) realizes that it is merely a collection of individuals that simply exist in nature (even if its suburban California). The individual is free, and in this country we have reasoned this is because a natural Creator has made it so -- any interactions we have from that point forward operate on the principle that man can freely move without hesitation, license, or infringement by his neighbor, and that the neighbor may move about as freely as well. How can one conform to liberty or freedom? Liberty and freedom are simply characteristics of nature that exist outside the bounds of humanity -- all men are born free. Conformity, in such a case, can only be applicable to a criminal who is found incapable of being self-governing in a "free society" and is therefore is outside the protection of natural law (an "outlaw") -- thus making it justifiable to incarcerate him. The great American experiment was not about having a "voice of the people" type government -- because those have existed throughout human history -- but to reason and trust the individual to act and be self-governing without being forced, coerced, licensed, or threatened into being accountable for its actions. Is man naturally evil or divinely good? A creature of logic and reason or of ignorance and self-destruction?

Ah, the great case against absolute majority rule systems and absolute dictatorial regimes.

To promote "reality"? But whose reality? Too bad that we do not have an unbiased media -- cheerleaders all. How do you establish reality in media coverage? It's much easier to tell people what to think than to teach them to learn how to think.

Using the faculties wherein my Creator endowed me with the ability of reason, logic, and a lifetime pursuit of understanding the nature of man for what it IS -- this is the puppet master which guides my actions. I do not think it is "evil" of anyone to disagree with me, but with everything I have ever studied I have only seen wisdom, reason, and understanding in the system of government our founders gave us. I have sought diligently (unlike others on this blog who only adhere to current standards ("and you know who you are")) to know what the founders meant when they spoke of issues of Republics and Democracies. I do not try to reason away the founder's contempt for Democracy, I try to understand them. I do not try to redefine their understanding, I try to fit my thinking to theirs so that I may understand them better and the government they left us. I do not try to push their thinking into my own, but I have been as open to their suggestions as I can possibly be. If this labels me a none "free thinker" and a "Manchurian Candidate" -- then I am guilty. Yes, in OUR Republic we do things by the voice of the people, but this is not even half the equation -- the half is what differentiates between our Republic and Democracy: the adherence to a reasoned, argued, and defined inalienable rights (as established by the mere existence of man as a creature of nature -- and therefore 'inalienable") wherein the majority can never make a case against... The majority will decide how to do things in our Republic, however, this does NOT constitute a Democracy. If this were all, then Waffler would be right, because we would absolutely be a Democracy; however, there is more to this country's form of government than mere majority rule. Sadly, we started long ago to make the transition from an established Republic into a Democracy, but this does not alter the fact that we were intended to be a Republic. How can ANYONE think this is authoritarian? Is Waffler seriously labeling people who try to strictly hold our country to the standards of the founders as they set forth as "authoritarian lovers"? Once it is made completely obvious that Waffler has no leg whatsoever to stand on in his ramblings of Democracy, and cannot provide any sources wherein the founders promoted "Democracy" -- the only thing he has left to do is bemoan them or anyone who adheres to their philosophies as "authoritarian lovers". Typical of slave mind to do - if you can't win the debate, then start labeling and mis-associating your opponent's origins as something socially deplorable. Nice fallacy Waffler -- your hero Al Gore would be proud.

Funny how we cannot communicate or think clearly when we don't use the correct terms as they were originally defined to understand ancient concepts. Those who seek to understand words for the times in which they were spoken are rare indeed. When the fanatical masses agree upon an issue, regardless of actual fact -- but merely upon what they are told through media and political leaders -- then is the time when society redefines itself into a new era, as it rejects the foundations from whence it came.

A strict "voice of the people" system is flawed, because there is no outside restriction on how the "voice of the people" can usurp (by power of being the majority) the rights of the minority. An educated society may adhere to certain standards (laws), wherein they agree to not infringe upon the rights of the individuals -- but this violates Democracy -- because in Democracy, what the majority has given, the majority may freely take away (thus making ALIENABLE any possibly perceived rights). When this agreed standard is merely set on the majority's decisions, then you have Democracy; when this agreed standard is set upon an outside codex of reasoned absolutes/laws (natural laws that exist in a state of nature, for instance, as our founders constituted), then you have something totally different (you have a system of government established by laws, not specifically by the "voice of the people".) Why is it different? Because the first look that the people's representatives must make is not to the voice of the people, but to the reasoned, argued, agreed codex of laws that existed before there was ever a majority to decide. This system is very much not "Democracy", though some systems of this government may have democratic processes in how they agree to function (don't confuse "Democracy" with "democratic process"). Then you have a system of government where laws are more powerful than the people's voice -- you have a system of government where no majority can legitimately decide to rape a women, kill children, or infringe upon an individual's rights -- why? Because the reasoned, argued, and freethinking seeker of truth has reasoned that it is not natural in nature to do so in accordance with our specie (Homo sapien, Child of God, individual of nature, or whatever you chose to identify yourself with). This codex of laws then protects the individual against the encroachment of the masses during a time of public frenzy... Sadly, it is the course of man to ignore these laws anyway, such as what happened in lieu of 9/11 with such issuances of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Intelligence Bill, etc.. When this happens, the established Republic slips into a form of Democracy, as legitimacy is no longer gained by reason, argument, and honest seeking of truth and freedom, but by whomever was in the bigger group. In a society wherein we accept that our Creator gave us our rights (thus making them "inalienable" -- even by ourselves), mere "voice of the people" governments are extremely destructive.