Ken can you prove that Thomas Paine is not taught in school?

and what we have obtained "to cheap" for the last 30 years is 11 trillion dollars of debt. It is now for time for true patriots to stand for financial frredom. Freedom from the national debt which will require the payment of "a proper price".

Steady as she goes! Paine what a guy! Right now we need a heavy dose of steady as she goes philosophy. The modern "sunshine" guys are the so called financiers that keep ripping off our people and our country, World Com, Enron, Countrywide. When are we going to stay constantly awake and regulate these clowns.

The old way of saying "paradigm shift". Such shifts effect society and history for a long time.

I am a Believer in America and its' philosophy. I don't believe that the teachings of the founders are just for the benefit of narrow nationalism but for the benefit of all humanity. Thus freedom, human rights, democracy should be preached from these shores to go around the world. After all if the principles are true and work for us they should work for others and bring them happiniss also. If they are happy maybe they won't have to come here to find it. All the above having been said it scares me that this could also be a mantra of radical Islam "to extend his views beyond himself". I guess you are right Logan the secret is diplomacy and reason and not the sword and fear. If something (idea, concept, method) is good and its originators know it is and are optimistic boosters then it will spread around the world. Look at the world brands created by American ingenuity; McDonalds, Wal-Mart etcetera. I am still not sure that most of world resents us however they may be jealous in that they want the same political and economic freedom that we have for themselves.

Good advice for a new nation, or any neophyte who could be sucked in by a larger nation or entity against its own best interests.

Wonderful! It makes me think of the darkness or confusion shed by some fellow contributors who transpose "United States" to States United and the name, title or style of our country, "The United States of America" (Aricles of Confederation state, "the style of this confederacy shall be "the United States of America") to such things as "The American Republic" and "the United States is a republic not a democracy". Let our usefullness include being true and accurate and not distorting or confusing language for some political purpose.

Nice to make some money so you can go to a nice restaurant once in awhile.

I have been to Jefferson's Monticello, Charlottesville, Va. home. He was in my book a real individual in that he did not need others that much. Some say "people who need people are the luckiest people in the world". Moi, I am happiest, I think like Jefferson, when I am backpacking in the wilderness alone.

"It isn't very pretty what a town with out pity can do," We seem to have been doing a study of the relationship of individual to group. Some think that America was built by individuals. I suggest that people seldom do things without relationship, consideration or at least awareness of others. In small groups or villages people may have the need to hang together closer for cooperation and having their needs met. In a large city services supporting the needs are more widely available maybe without much personal interaction. It has fascinated me how that individuals can prosper more in their individuality by leaving home and striking out on their own, thus becoming themselves.

Thanks Ken I really appreciated your "Private Yankee Doodle Dandy" insertion.

Archer I neither agree or disagree or codone it. In fact as you know I speak my own mind. I do admit that it seems to be a statement of fact concerning human behaviour. I have met a lot of kiss asses in my time who subvert their own opinions in order to agree with those who they consider to be their social or business superiors. Some may call this politics. All I am saying is that I think Heinleing is right that such a thing exists in all societies.

I prefer to just commit the moral offense and speak my mind and let the old chips fall where they may, but yes at the Country Club and tap Heinlein is right and basically is repeating the old saw "when in Rome do as the Romans do" and "get along or go along".

Yes Bryan I agree and it may be that in the France of Bastiat government control of professors in a "government" school was much more of an issue than in diverse America. I can't make an argument that professors in state universities in America have a fear of being "state" controlled. My perception is that the erge to control free thinking professors and universities generally comes from the right or conservative wing of the politcal spectrum.

You are generally right Carlton about lawyerly qualifications and the Supreme Court. Law and our rights should not be open to politics but to legal reasoning. Jim K you are naive if you have never heard of "the Black bench" on the Supreme Court. I guess it began with good ole Thurgood and continued with Thomas. There has been much in the lit about the court pertaining to this issue. As far as my basic argument have you ever heard of the Sunni/Shiite squabble or the Hutu/Tutsi squabble. Peoples living in larger communities beyond their local village must find ways to compromise their tribal, state, and local loyalties by accepting some rudiment of "quota". In the Veepstakes issues such as these will be considered. I don't thinking I am being a liberal Jim K. just a realist.

I just read the extended content from which this quote was taken. What just precedes the "Thus" is the proposition that a state supported professorship must not attack the laws of the state. What Bastiat is worried about here is the freedom of people to be nonconformists. Conforming or nonconforming is what he is talking about not 'slavery, oppression, etc" If that is the case then I give it a five. We should preserve freedom and nonconformity!

PS Mr. Thomas got on the bench as a "quota" himself. If he were not a black he would never have been appointed. I don't believe he was that good of a lawyer or politician.

Sounds good but is simplistic and maybe untrue. Englishmen envisoned vast factory farms plantations and imported whole groups to work them giving no regard to individualism. Irish and Chineese labor was brought in to build canals and railroads. Choosing and advancing "ones own" (family, relatives or tribe) is as old as the earth. The relatively new idea of the human family is hard to swallow sometimes and quotas is a lousy way to right the "wrongs" of the old way of thinking but do we know of a better way or do we want a better way.

Marx attempted to interpret history. He said that feudalism (a society in which you are somebody if your daddy was somebody) was improved upon by capitalism (a society in which your are somebody if your daddy had money or in which you are able to amass money on your own). He then "prophesied" that an improvement over capitalism would be where many people had money or ownership rather than just a few. He detested Russia and agrarian societies as still being in essence feudal. I know little more about the subject than that. His apparent efforts to force economic evolution through violence, thought control (anti religion) and propaganda is a sad history. If his analysis of the economic evolution of the past and prophecy of the future are correct no violence or tyranny or subversion is needed. Some scholars have said just that, that the October Revolution in Russia was just a fraud and grap for power by wicked, perverted men. It was not a natural evolution of econmics. Whether or not you think economics should evolve toward a greater distribution of wealth and ownership or back towards a lesser degree of distribution and back to fedualism is well I guess a part of ones personal value system. It has been shown that micro loans to poverty stricken people has been effective in getting economic engines working in places like Bangladesh etcetera.

I don't understand your question Mike? Personally I think I have always or often seen the light. I enhanced my intuitive understanding of the light just now by looking up the official name of the USA. It is not American Republic, States United or any other such deviant and subversve handle. The Articles of Confederation state "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The Unted States of America" That is good enough for me. Those who wish to add to, change that Stile in any way (such as Amerian Republic) are to me being untrue to the founders and are trying to subvert the Articles and the Cosntitution. As far as the term "sovereign" its' dictionary meaning is one having absolute authority. Historically the only way one could lose it was by the cutting off of his head. One cannot have absolute authority and temporarily lose it and then take it back. It is my belief that the term "sovereign individual" is a subversion of the dictionary and of decent politcal discussion. Subversion comes in many forms.

Hoover was a lousy analyst. He failed to understand the strength, power and moral might of American society. Just two of its greatest inventions, rock and roll and the personal computer, were more than sufficient to sink the soviet empire. The subversion we now need to be concerned with is the subversion of our language for narrow political purposes. Like the words "sovereign" and "republic".

May all our tyrannies be democratically elected ones. Much better than any other kind so said Winston Churchill.

Eleanor is a little wordy here, she could have just said "seize the moment". Isn't that what the young Mr. Obama is saying "our moment (he means his moment) is now".

Logan how do you fit the heritage of such villages and institutions as the Shakers and Amana society into your history of the United States. Also almost entire Eruope villages moved to the US if not en masse over a period of a few years and reestablished their village and lives here. I am not saying they were socialists. They were not politcal theorists. But they coomperated with each other for their common welfare and survival. I agree 100% that all of us come forth with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as anyone ever born or to be born. But an historic sovereign like Henry VII broached no dissent and thus he had the innocent head of Sir Thomas Moore removed. That is absoute power and that is what the dictionary says is SOVERIEGNITY. I still think y'all need a better vocabulary when it comes to sovereignity and "republic not a democracy".

Alas Archer you react with feelings (that is good) but ignore any effort at logic. IF INDIVIDUALS ARE SOVEREIGN why the hell don't all of the prisoners walk the hell out of prison. If socialism is so bad (and I am not saying that it isn't) why are we buying all of our goods from it. If socialism(s) are unpatriotic why do we allow companies like United Airlines to be owned by the union etcetea.