Ken you write so intelligently I can not believe that you do not understand the limits that are placed upon your hunting and fishing rights. You certainly are aware that if all could hunt and fish without any community oversight we or one or several individuals would corner the market and deplete all of the game. Hell the Native Americans were smart enough to know that. How do people get so lost that they don't understand that? The idea that the wild animals and fish belong to the community or state and prior to that to the Kings is a very old principle. So it is a modern Big Brother idea.

Robert I have heard a recent analysis of the October Revolution. It states that the thing was not a revolution of the people and certainly not a creeping socialism or communism as Marx preferred or predicted but a "revolution" and a dictatorship of a small clique. Stalin certainly solidified that fact. Palace revolts and putsch's are common throughtout history but they don't meet my definition of a true revolution in which a majority of the people are involved and see the light. Thus some say the Soviet thing was a lie from the beginning.

Delusion is caused by failed expectations. Children and young people find the world new and exciting. The deluded are the old burnt out ones. The old folks find every thing to be tacky or sordid but the youth have no such qualms about the world around them.

In the south traditionally we have not been susceptible to "modern" conformity. Our conformity has always been backward looking for don't you know "old times there are not forgotten". You can be a conformist by keeping to the old ways or going along with new (modern) ways. Never forget we are always living on the edge of time or the future. The Founders thought they were modernists also.

I think you first four guys are either liars or extremely uninformed. The Soviet State was founded on a lie. The lie was that it was a revolution of the people. It was not it was a dictatorship imposed from on high. America was founded differently and exists differently. In American freedom every body lies all the time so they cancel each other out and argue, thus their is no one party line. In Russia one big lie dictated that every body fall in line and submit to the party. Mike way to go 'ol man you here admit for the first time that the states are subordinate in the US. (I won't say that your old position was lie just illinformed.)

Good comparison to "flip-flop" travelingsponge. Emerson said that the sign of a genius is someone who learns from mistakes and changes. I grew up in Woodlyn, Pa. Delaware County and graduated from Widener. Nice to hear from Media, Pa.

There is a license and their is a certificate. The license I believe creates the legal record like does a birth certificate. The certificate is attestation of a public notice being given in a chruch or court house before your friends, family and society. No license no marital property no divorce. Again your questions are so philosophical and go beyond our governments, local, state, Federal. All societies have marriage laws, registrations of marriages, births, etcetera. You love history you should research how all this came about in every society of the world. I was a vegetarian for ten years. Your distaste of modern farming and animal husbandry is held by many. We live in a brutal world and we are on top of the food chain. Their is a famous SciFi novel that I read. The plot concerns an invasion by an intelligent and beneficent space ship. They establish a century of peace and prosperity upon earth but at the end of the story it is revealed that the aliens purpose is to harvest homo sapiens for their dietary needs. A return to hunting-gathering would be good for the environment because it would probably lead initially to massive canabalism and a massive reduction in human population until sufficient land and resources were returned to quality hunting gathering enterprize. I believe that there is a limit or optimal size of human population on this planet. If we cannot deal with that in an intelligent way because people like yourself Archer would consider it socialistic government control then your suggestion of hunting-gathering-cannabalism may be the only other recourse. Good discussion by the way.

Marriage license and its accompanying ceremony religious or societal is simply a recognition by family, friends and society that this man and this woman belong to each other, so keep yo' hands off. Even cave society recognized that when the brute dragged home his queen all others were to leave them to themselves. This is the beginning of family values. The ceremonies done in all cultures concerning birth, death, marriage, matriculation etcetera is nothing more than a recognition and a closure of certain facts or contracts. If no one objects to the marriage at the wedding "then hold your peace for ever more". Beyond that, custom and laws formed from custom impact things like marital property rights. Mike where you go wrong is differentiating concepts like state and society. All the places I have lived required societal recognition from city hall or the court house or bureaus of vital records of things like we are discussing here. Call it the state if that makes you happy. Archer ya got me on the Greek thing. I had a Greek brother in law who told the nurse after the birth of his son, "Now don't you cut that boy." The Greeks may be anti semites and feel that that overrides the dubious health benefits. The issue Archer is your question, infants are circumcised or not circumcised because it is what their parents want for their children. It is not law. You may be right about having to ask and maybe hospitals should make that clearer. I agree with you that many folks just go along with custom rather than asserting their own preferences, but people have a right to go along with custom also don't you agree? You are a much freer man than you think you are and your supposed fight for freedom is just a Quixotic tilting at non-existent windmills. If it was not for our desire for pork the little piggys would never have a life at all. Never feel sorry for something you may wind up eating Archer.

Yes Logan I hear you. And you sir and all of the wonderful participants on this site give me pause to think and wonder also. Thank you all. "In the depths of each man's biography lies the story of all men" Sam Kean. "I must confess, that, personally I have learned many things I never knew before....just by writing." St Augstine.

I love Popisms. I have a collection of them which I cannot find. Wiser every day now that is a life well lived.

I enjoy learning these genuine morsels especially of the relation not only of ideas but of the players on the human stage and even of the history of my own relatives. It was interesting to read in Benj Franklins autobiography of his London dinner party with the famous theatrical Booth family, the ancestors of the infamous John Wilkes of the same clan. History is great and important but just like Orwells 1984 (where folks were forced to worship slogans on placards, the placard of the day, the big lie) we must be careful that we do not esteem others greater than ourselves or those around us just because they wrote a book. Emerson warned us of this when he said "these guys are great men only because they wrote their thoughts down". If we made a beautifully bound hard copy book of all our posts here some would probably consider some of us great men. I can at least see Logan, Archer and Mike in that league, great men all! And Waffler would be there as the author of levity, just like the refreshing old Ben Franklin himself.

Logan I see you as a would be gutter politcian strong man. Please don't give up I love taking you and your ilk on.

Marriage is conducted in all societies and it is not necessarily a religious matter but a public recognition. I personally know of few "license" refusals. It is a common place that in the most rustic societies or tribes marriage has a public face, just like funerals, births and baptisim. Humans are social creatures. Why must your birth be certified when you are born: why must you have a birth certificate? If you seriously have no understanding or sensitivity to these things I truly wonder for your sanity. You like Archer are proving more and more each day what spaced out freaks you really are. You need to get more academic and phiosophical Logan and not so personal and down in the gutter. Your posts drip with so much hatred and vindicativeness not nearly as lofty as a supposed academic. Your attitude and behaviour is what a phony academic would stoop to when his stupidity is uncovered. I think you has lost your marbles.

Historically it has been minorites that have taken away inalienable rights. It has been individuals from Kings, to Dictators. King George to Stalin and Hitler, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah etcetera. Where the people can vote rights are protected and dictatorial society is ended. The Tories and the Nazis were more like you Archer in that they disrespected the rights of the majority of the people. The Nazi party was a small little party of gutter politicians. Main stream politicians, majorities, and free speech were eliminated. The worship of the strong man and propaganda insued. Such is always the case with minority tyrants.

Archer do all humans have inalienable rights? I would hope you would answer yes. Have humans lost their inalienable rights? I hope you would answer yes. The colonists for one, people under Soviet or Nazi oppresion for two other examples and of course numerous dictators and despots. So inalienable rights certainly can be alienated and have been. Which definitionally means that they are not inalienable at all. They can only be restored and maintained by a vigilant democracy wherein all are or at least most are aware of the fragility and sacredness of the thing. Archer do you believe that their is difference between the term "the people" and the term "the majority". Was the Declaration and the Constitution put into force by "the law" "the people" or the "majority"? I would respectively suggest that it was the majority of both the continental congress and the costitutional convention representing the majority of the people extant in the colonies. Without these majorities the freedom of the colonies nor their more perfect union would ever exist.

The marriage license is public proof or attestation that the persons are actually available to offer and contract themselves to each other in this way. It seems that it is no different to taking title in and transferrig property. Circumcision is considered to be a good health practice except by the Greeks. Pigs and cows like beans and corn are brought into this world for the purpose of being slaves or servants of mankind. The evil purpose of politics and religion (Kings, Popes and Presidents) is one and the same, the unity principle. As much as it seems we would prefer absoute individual freedom history has shown an equal overwhelming erge for mankind to seek or be forced into unity.

According to Archer the popularity of an idea directly correlates to it being a lie. Truth directly correlates to its degree of obscurity. Thus ultimate truth is ensconced in Archer himself. His argument or discussion flies in the face of the advancing light doctrine and of the slow but progressive enlightenmnet that Schopenhauer is espousing. Archers philosophy of the truth being relatively unknown is the hypocrisy and arrogance of the know it all dictator.

So Robert you mean it was just meant to be cute? I agree that it is cute but it is not truth. Lies and damn lies are caused by intent. Statistics well they just "lie" (no pun intended) there and do nothing.

Archer I did not promote any politcal beliefs, I only pointed out two examples of creeping or apparently creeping truths whcih attest to what the quote is saying. You on the other hand, you on the other hand leave us flabergasted with your politcal harangue.

Statistics (correctly done and not falsified)are not lies but only EVIDENCE to be evaluated and considered.

I like this quote, it goes with the three laws of communication: "Tell 'em what you are going to tell 'em, tell 'em, and tell 'em that you told 'em". I can think of two instances to prove Schopenhauer. Reagan and Bush apposed the Brady Bill for a long time maybe six years or so. When Bill Clinton signed it they well yeah it is just common sense and Reagan added something to the effect that Californina had already had a similar state law. (Bill Clinton remarked how they had opposed it while they were in the People's House and he was the only Prez who had the balls to do something about it, when he could.) The Brady Bill it would seem went through a few more than three stages of revelation before being passed but I hope you see my point. Bush II and his hangers-on have RIDICULED and OPPOSED the thesis of climate change and is slowly passing through the stage of eureka or SELF-EVIDENCE.

Who guarantees your inalienable rights? What force or power can maintain your rights? The majority only. Even when the majority wishes to do something against minority rights, it sits down and ponders and says "No this is not right" and becomes circumspect in its actions. Inalienable rights is a human concept guaranteed by no one except humans. Democracy I agree Logan is a treacherous thing but it is all that we have. Decomcracy and common sense. Sorry.

Government and its employees make mistakes all of the time. When the mistakes are intentional it isn't a mistake it is a crime. When mistakes are due to ineptness or lack of due diligence it is also a crime. Those folks should be prosectued. The society is full of folks that when any thing goes wrong it is the governments fault. These folks are blind also. Blaming everything on government is a symptom of expecting everything from government. Thanks for the book tiltle, Robert.

It is childish to think you can understand how every thing works. I don't know how a computer works, the universe and numerous other things. I trust professionals including medical ones every day to know how to do things for me and for society. Is it therefoe logical that government should be so simplistic that even Archer can understand it? It is natural that Archer would bring up the word worship in this regard because he is the one who worships at the altar of contrariness. If one believes in the Golden Rule and therefore has an understanding of how he would act in a position of authority then he can have some faith and trust that others will attempt to do the same thing towards him. How else are we able to have reprsentatives, mayors etc if we do not have this fatih. I am sorry for the contrarians. They are truly a sad crowd.

PS: This is a quote concerning the "ins and the outs". Nixon of course being the in authority and McGovern being the outside war protestor. (This is a great lesson for learning the importance of the context of a quote.) If I am correct about the context then it was not a platitude but a statement of Mr. McGoverns position versus the White House position on the war.