"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

RBESRQ...If I sow a seed, the fruit of it belongs to me and I am thankful to God, not the community and not the government, for providing the soil, the knowledge, and the strength necessary for the seed to be sown. You say that God has nothing to do with the rights and nature of man. If these rights do not come from the Almighty, where do they come from? Are they an invention of mankind? Do we receive our rights from a piece of paper written by dead men? Who is to decide what is right and wrong if it is not the Great Governor Himself? Is nature anything more than the craftmanship of the Carpenter? You see, RBESRQ, God has everything to do with everything. Anything that is contrary to His Law is not a right, its a crime.

Spoken by a man who escaped nazi germany; a man who has seen both sides of the coin, liberty and tyranny, socialism and capitalism. As you can see, he chose chose liberty and capitalism. As he points out, the two go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other, without liberty there is no capitalism, without capitalism there is no liberty.

Madison was one of the greatest political minds in the history of mankind. He had an unrivalled understanding of the purpose and tendencies of governments and a sense of liberty that is seldom seen today. Someone like Waffler has no business ridiculing a single word written by his pen. In doing so, Waffler degrades his own argument and shows his ignorance. When I review the comments made by you Waffler, I have found only one or two quotes that you have agreed with (one being by Marx himself). All the others, you have found incompatible to your liking no matter what hero or patriot was the author. I can only conclude that Archer is indeed correct, "You, sir, are the enemy of freedom and freemen everywhere." I pray that your voice is overcrowded by the voices of those who are truly ardent lovers of liberty; that your oppressive principles are lost in the ash pile of history; that posterity forgets, nay, never even knows, that you were once considered our fellow countryman.

I am stunned at how many people wish to give a government, consisting of officials they neither like nor trust and are always obliged to check, with more power and control over their own lives. The doctrine of socialism is found in the remaining ashes of every country that has adopted it. It is not a producer, its a destroyer. Wake up, claim liberty, accept its responsibility, and eat your own bread.

RBESRQ, Don't forget to thank that military monster for protecting your freedom and enabling you to voice your opinion here.

RBESRQ...I agree that a fair tax system may, to some degree, create a black economy, and in turn the money saved from not paying the IRS may have to be spent regulating transactions. However, a black economy also exists under the current system every time an employer pays an employee under the table in order to avoid both the payroll tax and the income tax. The tendency for the rise of a black economy due to a tax on consumption may prove to be beneficial. If taxes on a product are set too high, it would be sold on the black market and the government would receive no revenue from it. So the government would be forced to keep the taxes low and be rendered unable to oppress the citizens by such taxes. Also, it may be possible to set penalties for unlawful transactions high enough to discourage it. I do not have enough knowledge of the flat tax to comment on its pros and cons. As far as cutting the military expenditure, I also can make no comment, as I am unaware of the amount necessary to maintain the most powerful military in the world. I do beleive that America's military might must remain intact for our own national security. We must keep this strength, no matter how much money it cost. I'm not saying that it can't be cut at all, we just must be careful because if we cut this expense too much in order to save money, we may lose freedom. I am willing to sacrifice both my life and my fortune to secure the blessings of liberty for my children.

Archer...What do think of the idea of government, instead of taxing production, levies taxes on consumption? Instead of placing individual citizens in a tax bracket, place products to be puchased in a tax system in which people are taxed as they spend their income instead of as they earn it. This would render the IRS useless and give Congress the ability to stop funding it. The federal government would no longer have a reason to oppressively acquire insight into the income or bank account statement of the individual citizen, which in turn would transfer the power over the individual's paycheck back into the hands of the citizen. Those who cannot afford to pay taxes will buy less products, thus paying the least amount of taxes possible; the wealthy that can afford to pay more taxes will lavishly spend on products of luxury, thus paying the greater proportion of taxes. This seems to be the fairest system devised. What do you think?

Waffler....Do you believe in Gore's global warming? To what extremes do you wish the government to go to "save the planet"?

Connor....wrong Robert Lee. This was said by the author Rober W. Lee in 1996. Not the General Lee of the South. But you are correct, Robert E. Lee did oppose slavery and he did free his slaves. And yes, everyone should research the life of this great man.

Anonymous. During a recession is the best time to lower taxes. Higher taxes and more government spending does not stimulate the economy. Neither do bailouts and "stimulus" packages. The best way to imediately stimulate the economy is to lower taxes. This increases the amount of disposable income among citizens, which in turn increases their marginal propensity to consume (its called a Tax Multiplier). That leads to buying more and expanding businesses. The money used to do so is injected directly into the economy, thus stimulating it. That's macroeconomics 101.

RBESRQ. The states should be able to secede as they please. The South was justified in their secession because the government rules by the consent of the governed. They no longer gave their consent to the federal government. A state ruled by Washington by force alone is no different than when Israel was ruled by Rome. It is similar to the American Colonies being ruled by King George. If the People of a nation wish to establish another government, its their right to do so. I didn't say that Lincoln was right or the South was wrong. I merely said that Lincoln believed he was on the side of rightousness and he did what he believed to be right for the nation. As far as this being his biggest mistake or whether we would be in a better state of affairs, I can provide no answer. I know not what history would resemble if this nation was divided for the past century. America maintained her strength because she remained intact. After the wounds healed, this nation once again assumed the role of the super power of the world. What would WWI or WWII have been like if that was different? How would the Cold War have ended? Would that one war between the states have settled it, or would the two nations fight each other as France and Britain did for generations? All I know is that God chose His victor and we have to accept it, perhaps even thank Him for it. I have to ask, Why exclude Virginia? Do the citizens of this state not have the same right of secession as those of the other states?

Lincoln did indeed expand the powers of the Executive beyond its Consititutional limits. He somewhat assumed the powers of a king. The success or failure of that monarchial form of government depends soley on the wisdom and integrity of a single leader. Had he been a lesser president or a lesser man, he may have successfully used such power to aggrandize himself at the expense of justice. He adamently believed that assuming more power for himself was necessary to preserve the union and that the end justifies the means. However, the immediate preservation of the union was not the end. The "end" in which all officials and citizens must always strive for is the everlasting preservation of liberty and justice. History reveals that after the war and after Lincoln's administration, the expansion of executive power has done nothing but lead Us as a nation further from the original Constitution, and further from the true blessings of liberty. We must condemn him for his unconstitutional policies so that they are not repeated, but we also owe him a certain degree of respect for pulling this nation through the most trying time of its life. The quote is dead on, but it applies to not only Congress and the courts, but to every faction of every government (local, state and federal) in this country. The people have the power, right, and duty to overthrow anyone who perverts Their Constitution.

I must agree with Archer, We are given an either or choice, in which neither is absolutely correct and both are completely wrong. What we must do is REELECT NO ONE.

This quote has similar meaning of a statement from Our Declaration, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." When the government ignores the fundamental rights of the individual citizen and assumes more power than that which was consented by the governed, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it and restore it to the purpose of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty. Actually, it is more than just Our right, its Our duty. If we falter in this sacred responsibility, we will suffer for it until our deaths and children will suffer their entire lives. The usurpation will continue until another Founding Generation is enlightened by the Almighty with the wisdom and strength necessary to once again make this the land of liberty and justice. "Duty is ours, results are Gods." Lets do Our duty, and pray that God gives pleasing results.

"Those who give up liberty for a temporal safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Ben Franklin-- The first object of government is justice. When a measure of security disregards individual liberty, it no longer falls within the realm of justice and becomes contrary to the means in which it was trusted to protect.

Do not be mistaken Carol. Socialism is not attempting to PROVIDE for the General Welfare. Socialism is the CONTROL of the General Welfare. As I'm sure you will agree, this CONTROL is immoral, unconstitutional, contrary to the cause of liberty, and never falls within the realm of justice.

Waffler, the 16th amendment did NOT give Congress the power of direct taxation. The Constitution says that all powers of direct taxation are to be apportioned to the states. This 16th amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes." The argument lies in whether the income tax is a direct or indirect tax. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that a tax on property is a direct tax. Income is nothing other than property gained. In order to tax income, the government had to form an institution that zeroes in on each individual, keeps track of their income, and calculates how much they owe. You can't get anymore direct than that. Also, the reason for establishing this republic and ratifing the Constitution was to protect each individual's rights. The right to property was one of the first rights declared by this country in its first sacred document, and that right was later guaranteed by the Constitution. To take one's property based on how much property they've gained is a direct violation of their individual rights. If we allow Congress to amend the Constitution to ignore these rights, then we actually have no rights, and the Constitution becomes just red tape that the government can cut through anytime it pleases. And by the way, the first time this amendment was passed, it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. So an amendment can be ruled unconstitutional.

Waffler, "drop a bomb on the Cato Institute". Do you mean you want to destroy an institution that wishes to preserve the rights guaranteed to you by the U.S. Consititution? Say it aint so! The reason people were against the income tax when it was first enacted at 2%, is because they knew it wouldn't stop there. They realized, unlike many people today, that if we allow the government to slightly step across the Constitutional Line, it will continue to cross it until that Line, that boundry of power, no longer exists. If we allow the government to levy unconstitutional taxes, what is to stop it from taking your freedom of speech, your right to a trial by jury, your right to an attorney, etc? There is no halfway; you are either for the Constitution or you are against it. You are either a friend and advocate of liberty or you are a hindrance and an enemy. Read the Constitution and you'll see that the line is drawn. If you choose the side of the Constitution, the side of liberty, I welcome you as my fellow countryman. If you choose the other side, there are numerous socialist oppressive totalitarian governments throughout the world in which you may take refuge and call home.

Vedapushpa, "Non-food and one shelter items should be 'taxed' and not just the income". I am for completely abolishing every form of income tax and relying soley on a tax of goods consumed. It is not my neighbor's business how much money I make. Therefore, its none of the government's business either.

The date of the quote is April 14, 1999. I can see that many of you skim over your history and ethics just as well as you did this quote. It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.They perscribe their own limit that cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue. If taxes are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined with proper and moderate bounds.This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. So taxes should be levied not by the amount of income, but by the amount of consumption. Taxes should be assigned to goods and products, not citizens. Under this fair system, the rich will ultimately pay more for they purchase more products, while the poor will still pull their own weight.

So, by this theory, radical calls to violence are acceptable, it is the individuals responsibility to listen, discern and not react violently. As an open standard, this makes child porn perfectly acceptable, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater.