To further the military discussion, what are your opinions on conscientious objector status being only granted to people who oppose war no matter what? What if you believe a particular war is abominable and can't imagine yourself fighting in it, but you do believe in some cases war could be justified?

If we all abide by Biblical principles of our own free will, KEEPING CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE, our country could prosper. Or fail. But probably prosper. If we all practice different faiths (or no faith at all in some cases), KEEPING CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE, our country could prosper or fail, probably prosper. If we all live out the rest of our lives as atheists, KEEPING THE PROVISION FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, our nation could prosper or fail. And again, it would probably prosper. But if the wall of separation between the church and state comes crashing down, America will definitely fail, because then everything it stands for will be lost.

Logan, rights do not have to come from an authority figure like God to be unalienable; rather, I think if rights are things given to us, they are in fact privileges and can be as easily taken away as granted. Rights come from existence, and are all derived from this basic principle: self-government. In other words, I belong to no other being but myself, and because of this I have the power to determine what I do, what I believe, etc., so long as nothing I do not keeps others from exercising their rights as well. However, it is often preferable to not exercise complete independence and give up some of my time, capital, etc., and use it to help others. And once you join a society, I think this preference becomes more or less an obligation. As Social Contract theory states, the people creating a government surrender some of their individual liberty to it in exchange for certain things--security, improved quality of life, order, for example. Now, don't get me wrong; I agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Well, maybe not the part about not deserving liberty; I think people always deserve a degree of liberty. But I also think that a limited democracy (or republic on the large scale) makes for a nice happy medium.

Unfortunately, this is true. We should, however, constantly strive to change that.

Most definitely.

Interesting perspective, Bruce.

Here, here!

Naturally.

Mike, I'm a liberal, and from what I've read you clearly don't understand the modern liberal at all. Liberals do not believe their rulers are above the Constitution; in fact, we emphatically denounce ones (like George W. Bush) who do so. I have no idea what you mean by an "alien organic ethos with inherent right," though I do believe that rights are inherent. And I think everyone--except psychopaths and bigots, of course--believes that people should be treated equally before and be subject to the law. Finally, today's liberals do not suppose fiscal laws are mythical, and we would very much like to see our country out of debt. But in a receding economy, basic economic theory states that expansionary fiscal policy should be implemented. Now that the economic recession has stopped, maybe we can make our fiscal policy a little more restrictive. And yes, that will mean higher taxes to pay off past debt and eventually to finance new projects. Paying taxes is never fun, but taxes are essential to the preservation and advancement of society. The government/country cannot function without at least a minimal level of taxation. Observe: the country was failing under the Articles of Confederation, under which paying taxes was voluntary; even the Founding Fathers, who believed "A government is best that governs least" recognized that some taxes and federal regulation are essential. Now, factor in the changing attitudes of Americans up to present day; the majority of people in the US today, liberals and conservatives alike, want more social programs. It's just that not everyone, mainly non-liberals, wants to pay for the services they say they want. Others want to go it alone, pay for themselves and let everyone else do the same. But we can't simply cut all social programs (though responsible citizens realize that sometimes some cuts are necessary), because doing so would significantly decrease the quality of life for the lower class, into which many middle class people will also be forced, causing the income gap to increase (and rising income gaps are related to declining national conditions).

Well, yeah, can't really argue with that; I don't understand some of the comments on this page, they're completely nonsensical. I'm equally perplexed, however, at Mussolini's motives to say this. Is he trying to make fascism sound good, using the exact same straw man arguments used against liberals today (and conservatives of today... I know we liberals do our fair share of name-calling. I don't, btw... I make a point of not forming judgments based on words that have been made into synonyms for evil by the crazies. But I digress.) or is he just stating a fact? Because I don't see how any rational person can 1) call fascism and liberalism the same thing since they are by definition political, economical, and ideological opposites (which is what Mussolini in fact says in this quote), and 2) prefer fascism over liberalism, whether it be modern liberalism or classic liberalism (libertarianism)... but again, this is coming from a ruthless dictator lording over desperate sheep, so what can I really expect?

I don't know... a man who fears no truths can fear the lies of powerful people out to get him.

Disturbing...

Obviously; just read the history books.

... and put it, along with all the rest of the guns and weapons in the world, on a rocket, and launch the rocket into the Sun.

I've never heard this last part of the quote. Is it authentic?

Sigh... correction 2...

Sorry, I meant to rate that 0. My bad (My, my, I seem to be doing this a lot for some reason).

Let's hear it for cowboy diplomacy.

Here, here, Reston!

I'm sorry, I meant to say that a capital justice system is actually more expensive to maintain than one that does not exercise capital punishment.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The right to life is unalienable, even for murderers. I don't care if "he deserves it"; do you really want to sink to his level? Vengeance is obsolete and immature. And besides that, capital punishment does not deter crime, and a capital justice system is actually more expensive to maintain than. What useful, moral function, then, does the death penalty serve?

True, unfortunately.

I'm not sure if I support political correctness as public policy, but I don't see the harm in setting such a standard for myself.

One of my all-time favorite quotes.

But of course.