Good for him. Historically, the best governments that promote the most individual freedom are those that restrict their policies to the active violations of life, liberty, and property. Again, historically, these governments have faltered, exercised tyrannical dominion, and failed when moving beyond this mark. Government is simply a group of individuals, and is susceptible to every human folly that is found in its society; indeed, elected officials, in countries functioning by a democratic process, are a representation of the people who represent them -- for better or worse. If a people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, how can the government leaders they elect be more trusted? Government is a reflection of the people, because, as in our Republic, it is a reflection of the attitudes, beliefs, and inner-reflection of that country. If I cannot be trusted with my own personal liberty, how can I be trusted to vote? How then can any confidence be placed in the candidate of my choice? Wikiality is a very real thing; as such, it is wise to err on the side of not enough than to look past the mark. The founders of this country did the impossible, when they established a government that decreased government! The times in history when government decreased its power are indeed very, very, very rare. Once government has obtained a little power as it supposes, history repeats that it immediately seeks to gain more power. Kill the bad bills, let the good ones happen in good time...

Against hope, don't be stupid.*

Reston's comments are gibberish and contradict each other. What is the "government", other than a collection of individuals (the vast majority of which are non-elected bureaucrats)? How can people abuse THEIR power, and the government, which is run by people, not abuse ITS power? Waffler's comments are just as stupid. How do oversight committees and organizations possibly keep government from over-reaching its power more than the police and government organizations possibly keep the people from over-reaching their power? Your argument is built on too many fallacies to merit any further direct response. How can all the Obama supporters in this blog possibly bitch and moan as much as they have about the corruption and lost liberties of the previous admin and then possibly say that government doesn't now abuse its power? Talk about short-sightedness and short-term memory. I guess all Obama's walking on water, breaking the loaves and fishes, and making this high places low and the low places high has totally lambasted your memory in the short period of a month... Hypocrites all! What committee, group, or organization kept the Bush Admin from abusing its powers? Sure, watchdog groups bitched and moaned just as much as you and maybe slowed down the warp-speed abuse going on by the Bush Admin, but the Patriot Act 1 and 2, Military Commissions Act, and several other damning and freedom destroying "laws" haven't been repealed or removed. Common people, don't be stupid. As corrupt as people are in society with all the boundaries and curbs set by government law enforcement agencies through certain "laws", government officials are just as corrupt in abusing their powers with all the government agencies established to keep them honest and non-abusive. There is no morality or honesty pill that politicians and/or government workers swallow when taking their job that prohibits abuse. Against, don't be stupid.

We are now on the mend with a hyper-spending president and a congress that's super-happy that their pet-projects are getting put through. I despise the last administration just as much as I'm beginning to despise this one. Why not try liberty and freedom for a change? Why not try abiding by the Constitution and actually abide by the 9th and 10th Amendments? That's a novel concept! Why not stop trying to pass onto our children debt bondage? The ignorance of people who say that this can be just like the Great Depression astounds me; we are neither in the same economic or financial standpoint as we were back then --> our GDP and our inflation rate does not equate --> the domestic production rate is far lower than it was --> we have nothing to back our failing dollar other than with more dollars, artificial "hope", and GDP. Without printing more money, we'd experience deflation; the deflation would ensue until it hit equilibrium with the natural free-market production level. With all this new spending, we'll never let that happen -- this then creates an arbitrary government mandated economic financial system that is not run by the free-market but by bureaucrats in Washington and by the Fed. When the dollar crashes this time, there is nothing to help it bounce back. I can stare, wish, throw money at, and give as much faith as I want to towards my flat tire... but staring, wishing, throwing money, and sending "faith" to my flat tire will only make me look like the same kind of idiot these people are who think that good faith, wishing, throwing money at, and careful watching of the economy is actually going to fix what's wrong. We have not had a "change" in government; we're simply seeing the opposite side of the same coin. I am disappointed in the men who have raised themselves up and who are currently destroying my country...

Waffler, you blundering ignoramus. Do you even know who Hayek is? Your initial comment concerning what you THINK Hayek said is -- if it wasn't so tragically misconstrued -- actually kind of laughable. I've been reading over several of your comments lately, and I'm having a mental relapse -- I've got to stop reading your comments for fear of becoming mentally challenged myself. Why, for once, don't you stop talking and start reading; why don't you actually hop onto Mises.org and actually listen to some Hayek or Mises and figure out what they're saying instead of continuing to spew your stupidity over the internet? Your understanding of monetary policy is so capriciously ignorant, that, once again, I don't know where to actually start to pinpoint your stupidity... You have no idea what anyone here is talking about, but instead of trying to figure it out you merely assert your own unintelligent opinion and continue to use a strawman against everyone else. You're the king of fallacies. You can tax 100% of people's money and spend $0 dollars, and you'll never be able to pay back the national debt... Think about that one for more than two seconds, and then get back to us. If you can't figure it out (which you won't, and won't bother to), I'd suggest hopping on mises.org and start reading.

Archer: in response to our last conversation (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Steve.Dasbach.Quote.57F1) a few days ago... I agree with your follow-up statement as well; however, can you explain how you arrived at your conclusion, and add clarification one what you meant by disagreeing that there can not be morality without "religion"? Truly, the "belief in a Creator" and "religion" are not synonymous -- this is how I initially interpreted your comment, based on your followed response. My most fundamental question is whether you stipulate to the conditions of a "Creator", or hold that there is no divine entity (I'm sure you've mentioned something about this over the years, but I simply cannot remember). How do you arrive that the root of morality is life, and that which is immoral is death? I know how the philosophers of the past have dealt with this supposition, but what is your premise? Are you basing this argument on the premise that there exists a divine being/essence, or upon man's ability towards reason and observation alone?

No one here is against the "community"; I'm an active member of my community and participate in many service projects, as I have heard of Mike and Archer doing also and most of those who you would probably label as "anti-community". I don't even mind paying for it (which I have voluntarily done). Rather than carry on, I'll just refer everyone to this article: http://mises.org/story/3271

Yeah, you did mention Boy George; interestingly enough that you mentioned him -- as he was sentenced to 15 months in jail today for whipping a male prostitute with a metal chain (I guess he was trying to create a new tapestry on the guy's back?). Forget the crap about "creativity", people have been creative since the beginning -- there was even art that came out of the Communist Revolution (albeit it was crap, although it was "creative"). I saw a documentary where people strip naked, smother themselves with paint, and then go freaky-deaky on the canvass -- not exactly what I would call art, but I guess you can call it "creative". Whatever floats your boat. Concerning the matter of suppressed creativity in music and the arts, there can be little argument against how public schools have consistently thrown out creative classes for analytical classes; however, there certainly isn't a decrease in the amount of people who are willing to show their crap on display in the place of art... Sometimes it seems that I can blow my nose and put its contents on display and someone will call THAT art too -- but I digress. The suppression of creation and initiative that Mike has spoken of deals with other aspects of life that are indeed meeting the sharp sword of government suppression; I have personal experiences and several colleagues and acquaintances that have met such physical suppression... Such is life, the hand of tyranny hangs deep. Sadly, the majority won't see what is happening until it is too late; the atrocities committed on the few are seldom taken account until the infringing power has enough momentum wherewith to bury the entire country -- this is the sequence of history.

Archer, in your context -- I agree. What we have to ask ourselves is where "ethics" and "morality" ever began. Without the concept of religion (the paradigm of no divine origin) then all perception merely becomes a matter of what works and what doesn't (discovery of science). Religion, at its basic level, does not require hell and damnation; it does not have to be taught this way (although, sadly, this is the way it is usually taught). The foundation of a religious morality stems from the concept that there was an authority that stated the way things were (law); without such an authority, all reason, argument, morality, ethics, etc. become completely arbitrary as reflected and accepted by social customs and norms (democracy of knowledge, as it were). If all we are left with is science (nature), questions of morality have trouble finding place: Was it moral for the big bang to happen? Was it moral for plants and animals to evolve? Was it moral for lightning to strike violently in the oceans to cause the first spark of life? Is gravity moral? These are questions morality cannot answer, because these are matters of science -- and science only deals with what happens and what does or does not work. If I kill someone, we say that's immoral (religious imperative); however, according to science, there is no "moral" objection -- murder is just what happened. How we interact with each other in society, even if through reason and logic, is nothing but arbitrary assessments of what the majority wants or accepts if there is no absolute authority to define the absolute (all logic and reason would be nothing but an accumulation of societal history). We have yet to find the "absolute". Every good scientist will say that they don't "absolutely know" that something happens; what they can tell you, however, is that something happens with greater probability -- within a certain criteria -- than it doesn't happen. Love, courage, lies, greed, and cowardice -- these are not concrete absolutes, but they are merely patterns in social interaction wherein we have arbitrarily affixed a general application/understanding to a general concept. Who is to say whether they are right or wrong, or moral or immoral? I would argue that even right and wrong are themselves totally and completely arbitrary without the concept of a Supreme Being or authority figure. By one last analogy: Consider a room full of students staring at a whiteboard with advanced mathematics formulas written on the board (these marks are arbitrary signs that represent the concrete nature of the universe that exist independently, as observed). The students only have this classroom for reference (which is to say that we assume that cannot currently perceive anything outside this classroom). These students may, with their reason and capacity of thought, be able to distinguish and find their way through the questions on the board to find answers for themselves without being told how; however, without an authority who knows how they apply out of the classroom, the students don't "know" anything -- but they can comprehend with certain levels of certainty that they are right. It takes a teacher to move this probability to make it an absolute. Regardless of one's concept of a God/divine being/deity/Savior/etc., absolutism is impossible -- everything is relative; otherwise, we are merely left questioning what works better than something else... which is, in itself, completely arbitrary.

Ah, the split between medieval and modernism; nature and theocracy once divorced caused a tidal wave of issues that have yet to be adequately addressed. Time has yet to show exactly the outcome of such goings on. Nowadays we teach ethics within the parameters of nature, but such arguments -- however popular -- are completely arbitrary. The state cannot teach morality or we'll end up with another form of the Spanish Inquisition; hence the reason Machiavelli and a host of other political philosophers -- although hating religion -- saw its need in society. Atheistic education is an ignorant education, because atheism is scared to even address the matters of religion -- even in an academic circle. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and several other forms of religion should be taught openly is public discourse -- it is an ignorant and intolerable society that cannot endure ideas. You do not have to teach the divinity of Christ or of Allah to be educated in religion, but our society is ignorant enough to believe that "ethics" can be taught in reason alone... Not even Nietzsche was able to fully do this -- like Thomas Paine, he could not overcome the obstacle of every atheistic paradox: where did man first learn morality and ethics? The oldest forms of ethics and morality in history are from religious writings; how did the atheist learn morality and ethics? From his society that is altered because of the religious norms in that country... Government's a poor educators.

Yes, we're making analytical gorillas out of the future generation.

Well said, Ben.

Actually, no. Philosophy needs two "voices" to be philosophy: (1) the creative thought that tries to expand the limits of understanding to understand the universe and man's place in it, and (2) the rational mind that is capable of defining the limits placed on the first voice's attempts. Skepticism, however, is not healthy and is the death of philosophy. Skepticism also has two voices: (1) the automatic assumption that truth has been been found in perfect understanding and that everything that's worth trying has been tried; there is no looking back on history to see it for what it was (in learning how to plot the future, but the skeptic automatically assumes that he has the truth as a matter of progressive thought (regardless of any fact or event that proves otherwise). (2) Lastly, the voice of creating a following base. It doesn't matter what the truth is, so long as there are enough people to believe that something is true -- then it is absolute truth by consensus; furthermore, in his quest to create a following, the skeptic will either re-write history or tell his followers that it is unimportant to re-examine history -- the "truth", he tells them, is already found and needs no longer be questioned. As such, skepticism is the death of philosophy.

Well said, Mike. Obviously there are some here who prove Goethe's words: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". So long as there is some perceived freedom, most slaves believe that they are free. Yellow Journalism especially runs rampant in the United States. I don't even like McCain but our media sure showed that they didn't like him either... Talk about "fair and balance" eh? Obama got more than 75% of the media airtime, newspaper, and magazine reports over McCain. An official apology was issued by several newspapers for their bias during the campaign -- OOPS! So much for an empty apology! Their candidate won -- OOPS, we're sorry! It is ironic that Waffler is condemning Mike for not allowing "freedom," when it is Mike's philosophy that allows for the greatest amount of personal/individual freedom of almost anyone that posts on this forum. Waffler's all about "freedom", but is for licensing; Waffler's all about "freedom", but is for Democracy (majority rule without exception, which has ALWAYS lead to tyrannical dictatorships through an oligarchical transition); Waffler is all about "freedom", but is against individual rights; Waffler is all about "freedom" but is a progressive in matters of taxation, property rights, and government welfare; Waffler is all about "freedom", but is a walking contradiction to anything freedom has or will ever stand for. The dichotomy of Waffler's concept of "freedom" and actual freedom is a vast chasm wherein the spirit of Liberty quickly commits suicide; all such false philosophy as Waffler adheres will only lead to empty promises of "change" (but change FROM what TO what?), and the false ideas and practices that our founders fought against and died trying to eradicate out of our system of government in making our great, glorious, and wonderful country.

Karl Marx praised Democracy as the stepping stone into Socialism; he also praised capitalism as the stepping stone from quagmire of feudal Europe into a new socialist/Utopian society. In fact, there isn't a political philosopher that I'm aware of that doesn't readily admit that Democracy is the very backbone of Socialism. Socialism praises that the people themselves take control of all property through majoritism stipulation -- this is the very essence of Democracy. If Socialism can force society to take responsibility of providing for the individual, then fascism can force the individual to provide for himself (by making life itself illegal unless in accordance to state statutes like mandatory health care in Massachusetts). When two men with guns can force -- by mere virtue of being a majority -- an innocent man to ask permission to act in something he was already free to do, this is compelled compliance. If it is my right to walk on the sidewalk, it is usurpation and tyranny for two men carrying guns (by "guns" I mean any stipulated power that threatens my personal safety/liberty) to force me to ask permission to walk on the public sidewalk. What is worse, is that these two goons have convinced other people that their permission is necessary to maintain safety and order on the sidewalk. As a myriad of political philosophers and history have masterfully shown, Democracies ALWAYS end in tyranny and single-rule dictatorships. This is one of the basic reasons why Socialism will never work, but will eventually disintegrate into tyrannical rule. Blathering idiots who won't read their history and accept it for what it is.

How you rate this quote should depend on how you define corruption, and you cannot define corruption unless you define other terms and conditions; once you define your terms you are left with two sources for thought -- divine inspiration given through reason, or arbitrary/accidental thought. If thought is itself accidental, then there really is no absolute corruption because it is an arbitrarily reasoned idea.

So it has shown itself to have been, yes.

History has been written in large extent by "wikiality"; as it has been said, "history was written by those who hanged heroes". That is why understanding -- as much as possible -- the social pressures, understandings, philosophies, geography, ethnic and cultural trends, etc. are important when reviewing history -- not just in reading one author's interpretation of such. All history IS, however, subjective to the author who writes...

Government is merely an abstract entity and institution; it does not exist "naturally" but must be artificially created, exercised, enforced, and pushed forward by man. How exactly can man then maintain government correctly? What is "correctly" anyway? What makes one government better than another? What makes one government more or less corrupt? Humanity has stipulated a certain codex of reasoned human abuses, but where did the idea of "abuse" even come from? Is it human emotion and feeling, or the divine edicts that first placed within man the thought of "abuse" and "protection"? If there is no God then there is only what "works" and what doesn't (science) -- there is no absolute "right" or "wrong," only what happened and what didn't happen, what worked and what didn't work; if there IS a God, then there most likely is a correct way of doing things -- but that puts us back onto the question of what "correct" is. If there is no God, how does society figure what works good for me and not for my neighbor? What legitimacy should we give to one man's stipulation over another man's idea? Under this premise it can be argued that Hitler should be praised rather than condemned -- after all, if there is not God, then all thought is arbitrary (no absolute right or wrong) -- Hitler simply rose to the top of his specie better than the next man. Hitler then was the ultimate manifestation of natural selection in his day (this was neither "right" nor "wrong" -- without God -- but only what happened and what worked at the time). So, what is corruption? Be all this as it is -- according to the principles upon which this country was built (divinely given or arbitrarily fabricated), the quote is accurate. However, as Waffler said, our stipulation to "corruption" is not monopolized by our government alone.

This is the basis for the original definitions of "good" and "evil" that we can find in the oldest texts of religion -- it's sad how the religious world has so far transgressed this principle. The Judeo/Christian codex calls for "loving one's neighbor as one's self" and Christ's unique doctrine of loving one's enemies and praying for those who spitefully use and persecute you -- these philosophies have largely gone untried. Such untried philosophies have been distorted to justify wars, tortures, persecutions, and torment -- certainly not what Christ had in mind. The old definition of Good and Evil was merely the definition of consequences -- Evil was merely that which was reasoned to universally give all people consequential misery in a state of nature. Man turned this philosophy into a quest to coerce every supposed "evil" in the world out of existence. In Christian lingo, this meant that the "perfect law of liberty" was violated. Ironically, the greatest destructive agent to "the perfect law of liberty" was the Church -- after it was given political power to coerce the body of man. As a Christian, I hold the Church's AND government's feet to the fire to always allow and keep vouchsafed the sacred freedom of conscience.

Very nice.

Ah, extremely insightful in light of our current bailout situations... We'd all like to cry for the little man who might lose his job and his life savings that he had invested in the company; but, the quote then holds true again -- people need to start realizing they need to do more in our fast-paced world than merely check in and off the clock everyday and think everything's going to be okay.

Same thing happened with Russia when they dropped their income tax and loosened their restrictions; now that their economy has bounced back somewhat (even amidst all their tumbling stock market), they are tightening the grip again. China's economic surge won't last more than a generation (possibly two). China has several policies that will soon start fighting each other. Chris' point about the number of their population is indeed a factor. China might very soon start to experience a population implosion because of the following: consequences of the one child policy; cultural tradition to only want male children (because of the one child policy), which leads to many abortions of female fetuses; land production decreases due to bad environmental policies (the land in China Proper can only sustain 1.1 billion, but is supporting 1.3 billion); huge push for women in the technological and industrial workplace (urbanization is rampant in China, and finding a tech/industrial job is "gold" to the masses; women who obtain these jobs won't risk anything at all to lose them, especially having children; in fact, many women are simply having Oophorectomies). True freedom is a scarce commodity, but is very prosperous. De Tocqueville once said that Americans are so enamored with equality that they would rather be equal as slaves than unequal as freemen; perhaps this is a mentality that exists with many societies. It is a very real mentality that many Americans have that they would sacrifice their prosperity, even experience small amounts of "slavery," to supposedly give their neighbor a hand up. While the desire to help one's neighbor is noble, and perhaps the greatest thing a human can do, doing it at the cost of liberty and freedom is never the answer -- nor will it help you OR your neighbor in the long run.

Good Wm Penn quote: "Thirdly. I know what is said by the several admirers of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, which are the rule of one, a few, and many, and are the three common ideas of government, when men discourse on the subject. But I choose to solve the controversy with this small distinction, and it belongs to all three: Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the frame) where the laws rule, and the people are a party to those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, or confusion." (William Penn - "Frame of Government of Pennsylvania"). Penn's foundation for his "workshop of the world" stemmed from the philosophy of the Enlightenment; how does man work in a state of nature? "Society" is largely artificial and arbitrary (depending on the cultural beliefs, traditions, etc. of the people) as man reasons upon which legitimate foundation he is to interact with his neighbor in a state of society; our society was originally established on a reasoned principle of finding the "natural" process by which man would interact with each other in a "state of nature". Penn tried it, and it appears to have worked for him and the people as he forwarded Locke's idea and theory of "natural rights".

While I agree with less taxation (and absolutely no capitation taxes), I also agree with good fiscal and spending policy as well; problem with the Republican mindset is not necessarily the idea of fewer taxes but of their spend, Spend, SPEND mentality. Once we are no longer able to pay back the deficit, the US will go bankrupt; this is already a very real concern of many international financial institutions and foreign governments (you can easily youtube or google to see any videos). With exception of Glenn Beck (which I loath), there isn't a media outlet that I've found that is reporting any sound, accurate, or predictable economic news. Peter Schiff has been amazing in predicting the economic patterns that we've seen in 2008; you can youtube "Peter Schiff then and now"' and laugh as every economist who called him an idiot turned around and told their own clients to invest in Bear Stearns, WaMu, and Merrill Lynch. International media has proven to be far more accurate in providing predicability than any of our domestic news; sadly, because of the horrid financial policy held over the last 8 years, America's outlooks aren't so good; "bankruptcy" is the new name of the game.