LOL - irony follows expectation - no expectation, no irony.

Uh, . . . trying to say that the US is either a republic or a democracy is like trying to say that a person is either a human or a male (or a female). It's like trying to say that a vehicle is either a Chevy or a truck.

The two categories are different and not mutually exclusive. We have a demcratic (democratically elected representatives) republic (as opposed to a 'pure' democracy).

republic n. Abbr. rep., Rep., Repub. 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order. -- AHD

republic/Republic -- Merriam-Webster

democracy n., pl. democracies. 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. -- AHD

democracy -- Merriam-Webster

Brilliant man - It's a shame he was shot by a whacko.

Devout is not necessarily rabid, mindless, or impositional.

David, Thanks for the list.

Gölök is on point: Can an indifferent man be (all that) 'good'?

David, Who are these 54 registered socialists you keep referring to?

Dear "Have a nice day" -- I indeed "suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our (my) own opinions..." in cases like those of Adolf Hitler and Lawrence Auster. I also suspect the motivation, judgement, and integrity of defenders of the likes of these and others of their ilk. It's a personal quirk of mine and evidently not so much of an issue for some others.

Who could quibble with the stance of Adolf Hitler when he said; "We stand for the maintenance of private property." I'd still suspect the motives behind the articulation. I'd nevertheless have to agree that I approve of the stance.

Mike; Thanks for that - lol. It's also called GIGO on occasion (or brain fart) although I wouldn't want to provide too much ammunition - just yet.
In my defence, I'd say that I'd still view a quote by Hitler or David Duke with more scepticism than I would a Quote by Jefferson - not to shoot the messenger but to regard the motives as context for an assertion.

Editor, I checked my logs and you're right. My apologies all 'round. Mea culpa.

There's no doubt that Thomas Sowell has plenty of horsepower between the ears and that he's cast firmly in the mold of the Hoover institution's ideological camp. The reference to government 'growing larger' is a subset of the comment about 'human nature'. Any group (or individual) that's 'feeling its oats' is prone to bullying the smaller faction (or person). That's human nature.

Why, exactly, would tax-exempt status apply to a belief system, any belief system, in the first place? By that measure, Joe would be tax-exempt. Clark had it right in his qualifier "From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, ..."

Well, what I'm not getting is 'church'-like obeisance to the 'religion'.

Interesting ... someone's posting under my name. - nice.

Lawrence Auster is one of the America's most venomous racists.
From The Appreciative Followers
'Nice' leader, guru, and moral example.

Now for the inevitable 'socialist' name calling...

As usual, the 'great communicator', and not-so-great thinker, offers up a false dichotomy in furtherance of his ideology. What a novel idea; replace a horizontal fiction with a vertical one. At least he appears to have, at one time, understood that there was a difference between the convention of 'left' and 'right'. Apparently, he had a second thought but failed to have a third.

Translation: Fads reign.

Banal

Three stars for provocativeness. -- From the quote alone, one could gather that anyone (Rabbi, Priest, teacher, parent [of grown child], counsellor, attorney, doctor, dentist, car mechanic, ticket agent, etc.) who ever tries to influence or 'propel' ('propel' never hapens without a 'direction') another person or group (large or small) in a direction towards a goal which they lack the insight, experience, or knowledge to recognize as more conducive to their desired ends than some other 'direction', must necessarily be a 'social reformer' who would "deny their human essence, (to) treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore (to) degrade them" and be oblivious of the ability of the subject(s) or person(s) being influenced or 'propelled', to find their own way. That may well be.

I'm not at all sure Berlin would have suggested such a thing, though he may have. The question remains; how many lemmings going over a cliff make a satisfactory quota? I suppose the Darwinian model isn't, at the end of the day, concerned with the 'least fit'. It's a choice. Not intervening could also be viewed as a de facto form of eugenics. Those lemmings that die probably 'ought' to. I'm not sure there is an answer to which extreme is better - intervention or laissez-faire?

"The very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past." -- Isaiah Berlin

Isaiah Berlin was once confused with Irving Berlin by Winston Churchill who invited the latter to lunch, thinking he was the former. Oops.

Hyperbolic rubbish.

This Quote is from an article titled 'OUR FEARS AND DENIALS WILL ENSLAVE US' by Sergei Hoff, from October 23, 2004 - NewsWithViews.com
Sergei Hoff is an ex-Montana Deputy Sheriff, a very charismatic, eloquent, and persuasive ex-Montana Deputy Sheriff at that, who is now a sculptor. This quote doesn't begin to do justice to the article.

I thought I'd address this little piece of 'wisom' regarding my "I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you 'joined' the 'collective' by being born.":
Hogwash -- spoken like a true collectivist -- laying claim to others.

An observation does not a proponent make. Observing 9-11 was hardly an indication of approval. Nice try though. Clear thinking too.

E. A.; It's nice to use one's preferred definition after criticizing the reference as perhaps inadequate isn't it? I took your advice and procured the following definition for 'collective' from Merriam-Webster per your recommendation.
collective
Main Entry: collective
Function: noun
1 : a collective body : GROUP
2 : a cooperative unit or organization; specifically : COLLECTIVE FARM

I somehow doubt you're not in a 'collective body' but if you're not, I'm sure you've let them (the collective body you're in, that is) know anyway.

Failing to recognize the use of 'shit' and 'collective' as metaphors, and only reading them as concrete, 'local' phenomena, indicates an inability (or refusal) to abstractualize (generalize) a concept, resynthesise the generality, and then infer (deduce) a 'principle' from the (new) generality. Now, that may sound a bit complex but it's what everyone does when they consider and apply 'principles' (generalities) to specific (concrete) situations - if, that is, they actually think about the specific principles before asserting their applicability to specifics.

This abstractualization/synthesis/inference function is what, hopefully (perennially the optimist, I am), separates humans from parrots who can regurgitate poetry and 'pretty' dicta but aren't often really very good at 'making' poetry or 'pretty' dicta themselves.

E. A.; I find it odd that someone who would say "So in that context, those uneducated about the rights and responsibilities in a republic would not be 'qualified' to be citizen. I often thought that at graduation from high school we should all make our own personal declaration of our commitment to libery and justice for all, and sign it like the founders did.", could then claim that such a ceremony could ever be, in fact, 'voluntary', and then claim not to be part of a 'collective'. You see, there are things that baffle me.

I see you've alluded to your, reluctant 'perhaps', but nevertheless existant (unless you change your mind, of course), 'recognition' of the validity of the 'collective' in your reference to the enforcement of 'American Common law':
"The 'collective' is not involved -- 12 of my peers, perhaps, but not the 'collective'."

Hello-o!, ... knock, knock. That 'law', under which those peers act, is the 'collective' and you, having been born 'under' it, are 'subject' to it - immediately - upon birth - no delays - no exceptions. You don't get asked "Do you, my child, agree with how we, the 'collective' (who are, naturally, subject to your desires as you have taught us) have set things up? We ask because, well, you know, of course, that if you don't like it you can opt out at your leisure." You also don't get asked "Just exactly when and in what manner do you wish to be recognized as an adult?" -- At least most of us little ignoramusses never got asked that sort of thing and most of us, upon and after the age of majority, are at least unlikely to ask our children that sort of thing.

That 'collective' 'law' includes the 'laws' affecting minors and the Constitution which is also the will of the 'collective' - at least until or unless it's overthrown. Who the heck do you think 'enforces' The Constitution? Not you in your 'independence' (the 'collective' isn't exactly doing such a hot job of it just now either I might add). If that 'collective', to which you claim to have no 'duty', took their marbles and went home tomorrow, there'd be no Constitution and very few groceries.

While it's true that, 'When a million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing', it's also true that 'When a few people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.'

Wishing doesn't make it so. Santa's not really coming to visit. Sad but true.

Flawed premise for such a sweeping edict. We have to keep in mind that the 137 words following "collectivist theories" still refer to collectivist theories e.g., theories of 'Communism'.
Roy Shoults paraphrased the quote with excellent fidelity. The problem with the premise of the quote is the assertion embodied by the phrase "... which ultimately results in the controlling mind of one individual.", ("a single mastermind.").

"their adherents regularly pass by a sort of intellectual somersault to the thesis that in order that the coherence of this larger entity be safeguarded it must be subjected to conscious control, that is, to the control of what in the last resort must be an individual mind."
That premise/assertion (single mastermind/individual mind) is debatable though it's often been the case when collectivist theories were implemented as a form of government.