I really appreciate your comments here John of Newcastle. Thanks for the Charley Reese aphorism and good point about defining illegal weapons around what the military issues. What about this thought though. What if the weapons citizens were allowed to own are only anti-government weapons like tank busters? But that all small arms (which could be used by a criminal) would constantly be removed from society by the government? The idea here would be the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. That the citizens should never be denied the right of revolution. Even if it is unclear if the "people" could prevail over the US Army, still just the possibility of such a confrontation will keep the government constantly in their place as servant and not master.

How you guys...
How do we handle the argument that you have to draw the line somewhere. Are nuclear weapons OK to own? How about a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on a pick up? If those are not, what mechanism is used to determine what is legal to own? Who determines what weapons we can carry? Who determines who should not be allowed to carry a gun?

Hey Mike of Norwalk,
I can sum up what you are saying with this:
That is, if what you do with that knowledge gives you power of a thousand. Otherwise, your being scientific isn’t worth poo.

I'm sorry Mike,
I don't get it. I certainly don't understand your enthusiasm. For one thing, it's poorly written. The clause "but if he may not" is too far from what it responds to. And the word "may" instead of "does?" Clearly he didn't spend any more time on this than it takes to read it. And then there's the reference to the dog. Since when is a dog an example of not being free?
If someone besides G.K. Chesterson said this it would have even been considered interesting.

Doesn't anybody see the good side of orthodoxy? Mike? It is to be replaced with what pray tell? "Orthodoxy," the "goes without saying" the "what your grandmother taught you" is what guides us on the most important aspects of every interaction with someone. The tenacity that is objected to in the above aphorism is what's good about orthodoxy. These kind of rules are so widely accepted, so deeply felt you do not need men with guns to enforce them. I suspect the sentiment behind those of you who approve of Orwell's complaint, is the frustration with those few orthodoxies you don't like. If you can't change them without government, become the socialist Orwell was; advocate the use of government to invent laws enforced by guns. Big surprise. Orwell was an anti-Stalinist; not an anti-socialist. He'd be right at home in England today.

This is a powerful purpose for governments to have in their preambles. That its role in equality doesn't include reparation of past injustices. Nor does it include any form of making us equally happy or secure. I agree with Mike, this one super bitchen aphorism.

Thank you Mr. Rosenthal on what license meant then.
To make Milton's quote even more appropriate to our interest in freedom today it would be to interpret the word license to mean what the new definition is: permission of the state.

Excellent Quote by John MIlton of course. But also brilliant comments from the rest of you.

Let us not forget that there are bad guys.
It is also important to note that the purpose of the law is not to make us more moral through time but to make sure crime remains morally repugnant and that criminals do not gain in power every time they commit a crime.
We do not have a free market in protection. The government has that monopoly. All we can do is get them to recognize that the correct laws are those that are universally accepted and to discard those that are only for the government's convenience.

Ken Allyn,
That was brilliant. Far wiser than Bertrand Russel and he was a genius. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you. Ken reminds us that the 1st Amendment is a negative right.
E Archer's observation was equally brilliant about the fact that it's not just the government that has the potential to constrain "profession" of thought. It would be very wrong to think that that problem needs a fix, however. Some will argue that there is a solution to E Archer's example; to treat the First Amendment as a positive right; to give the government the power to police, judge and punish any institution that seems to counter anyone else's freedom of speech. Enforcing positive rights opens the government to unlimited power. As we have seen.
Walt

Mike,
This is a Hayekian statement but it is too short to be of any value. It doesn't say why. Truisms don't teach. He might as well have said.
Hurray for Hayek.
Walt

Mike,
Just wanted you to know that I do like some of these quotes. Hayek in particular is fantastic. But do be cautious about praising heroes who make too brief a statement where you read into it what you want, or statements like that of Hoffer that sounds really really deep because he states it in profoundly sounding double negatives.
.... ...... Oh and who is this Ron w13 little girl? How can such a childish mind make complete sentences. I checked them. They are and spelled right too. Do you think it is a computer program that puts together random words? Or what?

Shit that’s confusing. Why do people admire double and triple negatives? How about this translation…
For liberty minded people, freedom is always measured in what’s left to us by the government; the space between what we are forbidden to do and what we are compelled to do. Eric Hoffer, a truly great thinker is no libertarian. He also believes freedom has to do with government in a negative way. But we are only to fear what government forbids us from doing. He does not recognize the compulsion side of government.

Here's a better one by a famous composer...
"Composing is easy, just write down a familiar tune, no one has heard before."

This is an example of a truism. It merely states an opinion. A few more sentences of justification or example are necessary to make this an aphorism... a micro essay that would be useful.

Mr. Hanson.
You may have a point. But insulting me that I should learn to speak English, makes me think that what follows is from an 8th grader? You didn't mean to do that, did you? I just can't help but think so, so rather than consider your logic I'm compelled to work hard to find fault with it.
From what I know about Hayek, religion, or any other ground up self-ordering institution creates the kind of moral guidelines we should live by. Religions in this country do not compel like laws on behavior do. The best ideas will emerge.
I still think that something was lost in translation. His interviews reveal such a deep accent that indicates to me that he is still thinks in German. I think we should forgive the great man the occasional confusion.

Wait a minute Mike....
Look at this from the point of view of a super Stalin. He would agree with it.
Freedom is the ability to say two and two is five.

I don't get it.
Somebody explain this to me. Could there be a type-oh here. Maybe it should be "if he were only free" or better yet.... a free society is more than a collection of people not being interfered with.

This is heavy.... man.
I think it means that freedom is not a means toward any end. It is itself the purpose of life. It is easy to fault the liberals for their claiming "freedom" as one of several tools for making members of society more comfortable, but it is only a tool to serve equality. But what about us? Do we put "making members of society more comfortable" above freedom? Is freedom how we make life better? Or does a higher standard of living somehow make freedom better?

This is childish philosophy.
What if it costs 21 guilty to be set free while insuring no innocent is punished? Or 20 thousand guilty? What if it cost half the government budget to not set any guilty free while saving the one? On the other hand, what if everyone in the community EXCEPT one; --the innocent man-- thought he was guilty? How can such a mistake harm the community? The value of law and order should NOT be to do God's work. It is to do the best it can TO INSTILL IN PEOPLE THE IDEA TO NOT DO BAD for a price that is what the people are willing to pay. That price has to include the people's belief in the justice system. Could it be that that can be achieved more economically without placing punishment as the central purpose of justice? If you consider that even justice has to do with economics, ask yourself this, how is it that such nonsense as this quote can make sense? Only with two conditions: justice equals punishment and both are to be provided for what appears to be free; with socialism. That's right our justice system, like our educational system is completely socialized. If you drop the nonsense that is this quote, agencies within the market place may spring up and from this fountain of innovation there may be discovered a better way to INSTILL IN PEOPLE THE IDEA TO NOT DO BAD.

This quote is a real thought provoker. Mike is right to ask (by whom ? ? ?) but it might not be referring to a who. Hoffer's first sentence may be stating a hypothetical definition of freedom. He then states that minorities tend to go beyond that definition. I think he is not taking sides in the matter. He's observing a tendency in society. And Elk Grove brought up an excellent example. The minority of gays has changed an attitude in the whole country. I don't see that it is a problematical change though. Most of that change was done without government coercing anyone. Contrast that with the use of government attempting to force a change in the attitude of restaurant owners serving blacks. I see no problem in groups (minorities) gathering together for a change in the hearts and minds. What I think is dangerous is implementing the monopoly on the use of threat of violence (the definition of the state) to make the change.

You guys are right. This is bullshit. Maybe something was lost in translation. How about this as an improvement:
Humans are corrupted by prosperity. The more prosperous the state, the more corrupted its laws.

Here's my version of that sentiment...
When you heard someone advocate for gun control, do remind them of the exceptions. Let’s see there’s the police; they have to carry, the military of course. Oh and all criminals carry.

Mike,
Good points. Love my daily dose of wisdom from Liberty-Tree.
If you aren't the owner of this wonderful website, do you know who is? Do you know?

Mike, I'm troubled by your use of the phrase "secure in". It smacks of positive rights; something that is to be provided. That doesn't sound like you. It also bothers me that you imply there's more than the examples you gave. The rights associated with the spirit of this website are negative rights; prohibitions against the state. Negative rights don't cost anything to provide because they are not provisions. They are constraints. If you think that others in the list of security to be provided include secure from fear and secure from want, then you are on the wrong website.