This quote is in the same spirit of the Diefenbaker quote of yesterday. . . "Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong." . . . Except this one doesn't deny us the right to "DO" what we want without permission of the state or God.

Mike of Norwalk. You pop in here more often than I do. I suspect you are the owner of liberty-tree quotes. If you are, I wish to thank you. I look forward to them every day. You do a great service to the liberty movement.
The Diefenbaker quote was conflicting for me and I had a tough time writing my objections to it. There is a kind of arrogance about it that bothers me the most. Not only was he a politician, he was a ruler. If anyone else had made that quote, I wouldn't be so bothered. But when a person who is born to rule, or thinks he is, grants us the right to have erroneous thoughts floating around in our head, it is the height of hubris. Even more pretentious is that we are not allowed do anything about our thoughts unless of course they pass through some mechanism of approval. That he is a politician and believes in rule of legislated law provides a context that there should be a force which prevents us from acting on that which he, or rather He feels is wrong. Nope. I'm unswayed by your comments. This Diefenbaker Quote gets a zero based on liberty. It gets a five based on rule of law assuming they are unchallengeable laws. As to my not reading enough of your comments on natural law, I'd like to point out that natural law evolved from a process not unlike the free market. And it is not only not done, none of us have the right to tell each other what they are.

All of you speak as if there was a way for mankind to know what wrong is? This is how the most atheistic of liberals think. They aren't sure there is a God, but they are sure that there is an absolute list of right and wrong and that they have special access to it. Just because they don't go to church doesn't keep them from using the trappings of religion in taking the reins of government. They do --as you all apparently do-- assume there is a tacit acceptance that right and wrong can't be tested. This quote is only one sentence. To understand something that is so short you have to assume some context. He was a politician. He believed in politics; not the market place. Thus the unspoken second sentence based on that context is: "You must use our rules when testing the truth."

I agree with Mike, except that for me it is so obvious as to be useless. This is an example of a "truism." I hate truisms. They teach nothing. The question that this begs is "Why most reporters are so biased?" To which I propose the answer is that they are liberals and liberals are accustomed to controlling the political agenda because they give away stuff to those that vote. Whereas guns are in the hands of those they can't control.

All good answers to my question. But I still don't like the quote. It is no where near as good as the ones Mike found for us on the same subject. Thanks Mike.

Anyone wanna have a go at what the hell that means?

This is something of a truism in that it teaches us nothing. The left would salute this just fervently. For them society is made up of greedy businessmen for whom capitalism is a tool of oppression of those without capital. They see big business as the primary blocking of the exercise of consumer or employee power. They may even dislike government but see no other way to stop greed from using capitalism.

And not just those with absolute power, but those with the ear of the public can make their mistakes look like vindication. Unexpected results can be spun as a reinterpretation of their original proposal or a reason to expect their predictions to be delayed some.

Thurgood's argument falls down when its advocates are OK on government owned schools.
How about an amendment separating school and state.

This aphorism badly needs examples. In the comments only example and its a good one is from Ken, of Allyn WA. Thank you Ken.

I think this aphorism is weak to the point of useless and a waste of time reading. He states that judging the law is in the Constitution. It isn't. Just that a jury is to be there. It is tradition and eventually a cultural meme that the jury can judge the law. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THOSE WHO DENY THE RIGHT TO JUDGE THE LAW HOLD THAT THE PURPOSE OF A JURY IS TO ALLOW PEERS TO JUDGE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT. That's all. They merely serve as lie detectors.

I too have a problem with this aphorism. Just because it sounds profound, doesn't mean it is. It starts off so interesting; that the poor could have moral problem too. Then the last sentence. It doesn't work for me. If I were down and out, and have been getting support for a long time I would still appreciate the gift but the only bad feeling I would have would be a feeling of dependence; that I was entitled because of bad luck. I would also be afraid the Republicans and other not-so-generous rich (because of luck) people might take it away. But all of those feeling would be insignificant compared to feeling sorry for myself. But just as the powerful don't see themselves as corrupted, there may be some corruption that the poor don't see either. It may be that the giving up of ever being productive is that unseen corruption.

Normally Hornberger has wonderful quotes, but this one troubles me. It is something one libertarian would tell another when drunk at a liberty conference boasting about his radicalness. Although true, it isn't going to move a single non-libertarian to liberty. Not one.

Not only is this quote bad philosophy it is poorly written. How do we know Lincoln said such a bad aphorism. For example . . . "Whoever rejects it does of necessity . . ." Rejects what? ... the fact that it can change, or the fact that there are hard and fast limitations. How is it that not sticking to "flexible limits" can lead to either of opposite extremes . . . " to anarchy or to despotism". That's nonsense. And how is it that "always changing easily" is in the same sentence with "constitutional checks and limitations"?
I agree with Cal, and Jim above that Lincoln was a tyrant, but he was also brilliant and this quote is not brilliant.

Man, that ain't much of a quote.
How'd ya like to be remembered for that dum-ass saying. It isn't even her idea.
I looked for other quotes by her. They are all lame-ass except this one:
"There exists no politician in India daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that cows can be eaten."
She had no idea why. The lessen there is that you can't force people to do things that have long been established within the culture. Laws follow the cultural norms. Not the other way around. But they try.

I think there's something missing. Is there a background to this? Is he talking about the Yankees or the Republicans or what? 1828. It can't be the Yankees. And he wasn't governor then. Ah here it is... This quote is the inspiration for the Spoil System:
In the politics of the United States, a spoil system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the partyas opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity.
You know government as usual.

Interesting about one right on the list that didn't make it in the actual bill but ended up "de facto" after 1933.... the one about the government's right to control business by eliminating monopolies. Libertarians wouldn't like to hear Jefferson promoted that one.

Did you all see the Anonymous, phx quote above?
"talk is cheap; Absent consensus it does nothing"
That is really really good. And it is not found by Google. Even that entry hasn't been found by Google. It is original in the past few hours. So who is phx?
Does anybody know?

"Neutrality in speech context."
Is a rarely encountered subject for most of us armchair philosophers. I believe it has to do with getting permission from the government to use their facilities; the most common example is permission to hold a parade down a busy street. If they won't give permission to anyone Mon through Fri, that's neutral.
The least commonly stated example is the most common in practice: government owned schools. They knock themselves out to be fair about who gets the microphone in their open space, but what about all the time the government chosen teachers are holding the microphone?

Mike,
This is a hard one and it deserves from you more than just praise. How about an explanation of that last sentence.
I can sure identify with the point about liberty not working without a moral foundation. I believe Tocqueville is saying that such moral foundation could be acknowledged by a non-believer and that that non-believer should be an appreciator of religion even if he doesn't do the activities of that religion.
But then there's that last sentence. The only ambiguous word in that sentence is "adversaries". If he means supporters of tyrants (statists) then it is established religion he opposes and that alas, such opposition is counter productive because it looks like he's against religion?
What do you think of that interpretation?
Walt

Jim, Mike, all you guys are right...
This aphorism vapid. It should be kept in the collection though, just to show that Republicans like Irving Kristol are as shallow as liberals. He just strung happy words. Let me see if I can make up one...
Government does not guarantee happiness --
it only guarantees the opportunity for happiness.
or how about...
Majority rule does not guarantee wise rulers --
it only guarantees the opportunity to for wise rulers.

Carlton in Calgary,
Thank you for your comments. I did not know that only a navy was authorized. I appreciate your attachment to the 2nd Amendment. I am, however, so wedded to the non-aggression principle, that I worry about the emphasis on weapons as a means of intimidating the state. They of course have no moral justification to exist, so it is not for reasons of empathy that I resist. It is that whatever force the state perceives as its enemy it will build up its own force until it does not feel that threat is real. You can't win against that which the state is best at; force. And then there's the problem Robert LeFevre is famous for. However bloody the revolution is, is how bloody the regime that follows must be. Our Revolution was not a revolution. We threw out occupiers. The enemy went away. All revolutions since then were bloodbath's that continued forever. Instead I'd like to offer a 28th Amendment. What do you think of a confession on the part of the federal government about the Civil War; that preventing secession was not a reason to kill single American, let alone 640,000 Americans and at a cost that was more than what it would cost to buy the freedom of every slave in the south? There should be a Right Of Secession.

Thank you Dick. Someone on my side. Just because it shows up on the best website for quotes on the net... doesn't mean it is good. I suggest Mike takes this one down.
As to Mr. Archer's well said point... If one is a mistaken soul, how can one learn from this, if one doesn't understand it? And if like all liberal aphorisms, it is merely to make those who don't have a mistaken soul, feel good, note how useless such a statement is since no one knows what makes up each other's depth.

I don't get it.
Why are you guys so lockstep in agreement here? The first two sentences posit that it is meaningless to have an army if it isn't the most potent force in the country. Next he claims that for this to be the case we have to have gun control. Right? So far he seems to be arguing the case for the liberals. But then he says that if you had such a force, congress would be tempted to create unjust laws.
Is he saying that the police/militia/army, whatever, should never be as strong as a spontaneous organization of individuals intent on killing or by the threat of killing, preventing the acts of congress? Why is there no mention of how big this armed body can be or how it can tell the difference between patriots with guns and liberals with guns? And who do you propose will take the place of the fleeing congressmen? Clearly... the men with guns. And finally, what mechanism are they accustomed to using to run a government after that?
The commenters to Liberty Quotes tend to be conservatives rather than libertarians, so you should have trouble with Noah's quote here. You are into law and order but don’t trust government. Libertarians can escape this dilemma by noting the problem isn't who rules, but that there is a government that rules. The desire to run the government is primarily driven by the fact that there is power there to wield.

What do I think?
I think somebody should explain to me "more more" what?