People who go around yelling or publishing "I am an Individual" are not independent persons but are crazy, just like Nietzche and that other guy the Dane who had it engraved on his tombstone. These guys all died nuts what does that tell you about guys who have to boast about being individuals, They are not. True indiviudals who have a sense of self and of who they are have no problem in joining with others, forming governments etcetera. The guys like Archer who yells in effect "I am an individual" is simply a sociopath.

I agree that not everything is up for vote. The things that are up for vote shall be decided by the majority that by the one. To do otherwise would mean the dictatorship of the one on those things that are up for vote. Why can you not get this?

Elisabeth I believe there are many more and diverse options than the ones you listed. We are cast into a black and white world. These economic terms that you used are of mans own making and we can make new terms and systems that pragmatically fill the needs of mankind. All we must do is to free our minds of terminology like you stated.

A lot of individuals feel much more free now that the state (existing for their benefit) has finally instituted health care reform. A freedom for which Roberts brother Teddy (as well as that other Teddy (Roosevelt) fought long and hard. Cal I don't think liberals try to consoldiate power to DC but try to make government work and benefit the individual just as he said here.

Order is the entire purpose of government whether it is misgovernment or good government. I don't think it is a cloudy apellative at all. Thus while he is seemingly correct his sentence structure requies me to deduct a few stars.

I will only give it a two. While it has much truth it is based on some idealistic notion of homo sapiens that just is not true. He fails in my opinion to recognize that homo sapiens are a biological organism, not a machine and thus it also cannot create a perfect logical machine. Although we must continue to try to do so, these are the cards we have been dealt. I am not complaining about this hand, face your hand with courage.

The statement is generally true. That is why we have always had to import labor into this country. The landed arestocrats and the enriched later generations of colonists had money and wealth given to them so they had to bring Irish, Italians etcetera here to do the work. Anonymous is correct that such statements as this is gen erally useud to look down up those who seemingly have less and are considered lazy. The

In a democracy the opinon of the majority holds sway, the individual has the right to join with other individuals in matters of public policy and to enoforce a majority position on the one. His opinion shall be heard but not hold sway.

True for both the one and for the masses. I wish more folk were balanced in defending the rights of the masses as much as of the one.

I think you are correct J and since it has never been it has never been desired. What is is what we want. Government exists all over the world, so it must be what is desired.

If you go around yelling "I am an individual", you probably really are not a fully functioning independent person. That German phiolosopher who had "The Individual" engraved on his tombstone died half crazy. Tell me something if you protest loudly "I am an individual" what do you think of or call the other 6 or 7 billion human beings on earth "The non-individual". Or better yet if you believe in the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and you believe that you are an "individual" what do you think the next guy is and the next guy etcetera. And when these next guys join together into clubs, parties, organizations etcetera what do call them. Quit kidding yourselves and jerking yourselves around. Basically you guys are saying that you are stiving to be an individual only in relation to something else that you consider to be other than an individual. True individuals have the strength to join with others not sneer and abhor others and groups. The person who sneers at groups of others is a psychopath.

aa, hb people with no insurance go to the emergency room and stiff the hospital and the feds pay these hospitals for their losses. Now people who do not have but can afford health insurance will have to pay up. The hospitals will get paid or more than likely the former free loaders will go to a faimly doctor and get health care paid for by their insurance company for which they have paid a premium. What is wrong with that approach?

Mike think for a minute think, I know it is hard but do it. If you and all the guys you mentioned are part of the group called the individuals are then any one of you an individual, I suggest that you are not. You are just part of a group or gang called "The Individuals". Quit kidding yourself and jerking yourself around.

I estimate that I and my employers have invested over $250,000 into my heath insurance. I have received maybe $20,000 in claim reinbursement. Insurance is socialism regardless of who runs it. The government does it cheaper and the CEO's do not get millions of dollars in salary.

Kalamaazoo is really on to something. Egalitarianism is part of the American dream. Once we got rid of the King and noble then we all were conceptually equal. Some capitalists wish to re-establish a caste systme if they could. Corporations that corner the market with a group of investors and run and control communities are just as much a problem as big government. Watch the movie "Erin Brokovich" for a good lesson in corporate misdeeds, authoritarianism and srewing of the average man/woman.

Good stuff you guys. So glad you started to relate to things and the world around us. Individual is a concept, a very good concept and one we should strive to use to create a better world. But I ask you to think further, in a can of worms do you see them as individuals or just a bunch of worms. In the universe at large do you think they see mother earth as a planet of individuals or just so to speak a "can of worms". We must strive for individuality it is not handed to us, we may be theoretically be born with it but we must exercise at and at the same time know the other concept which is equally true. No man is an island unto himself. An individual should truly be able to exist without parenting, teaching, and all of the other support we have had since birth. Name a person who has done so. So glad the somber Mike has been able to laugh today. Using my definition of individual I respectfully and humbly suggest that I am the only one on this site who consistenly strives to be one. I find most in lock step with an anti-Washington mentality, whose strings are constanly being pulled. One whose strings are so easily pulled as are Mikes et al are not individuals in my view just Pavlovian type knee jerk dogs.

The individual is a concept not a reality. No man is an island unto himself is a reality.

Okay but a little narcissistic, is it not? For where do we find this entity "the individual"? Is it I or is it you? If I am the individual does that mean that you are not. If we all are the individual then should not the quote say "the individuals" (that is pluarl) are the true reality of life. And does'nt the "S" make all of the difference in the world in this quote.

Good! The new law of the land health care bill improves choice. Now people can no longer scam the system by visiting the emergency room rather than a family doctor. Can no longer stiff the emergency room by not paying. Reducing the free loaders improves freedom and choice for all of us. We should not have the freedom to be free loaders. As someone said "freedom is not free". If your choice is to stiff your fellow man or men then I think it is their choice to take that option away from you. That is what the health care bill has and will accomplish.

J you seem to contradict yourself. At one stroke of the pen you bewail "socialism/communism" which is generally considered to be an other directed philosophy your equality and all of that stuff, then you bewail the "me" philosophy which is more related to "capitalism". It would appear that like neither he "me" approach of capitalism or the "use" approach of "socialism".

Is the opposite also true, that is should we rejoice when fewer and fewer people have decent housing, affordable health care

Judith and Mike if you would ever be interested in opening your mind, the health care debate was about the fact that uninsured people flood emergency rooms with their problems and never pay their bills. The humanitarina laws and customs of our country require that they be served. These hospitals file claims against the government who pays the bill. The new system will require these free loaders to pay up. Now these people are not the destitute, the destitute are covered by Medicaid. The health bill is a win for all of us.

Locke is a psychotic who hates and discrinates against young men. What kind of mind could he have had to be that shallow. Logan is a philosoper worshipper who can not think or analyse for himseld and who also thinks "America is a republic not a democracy".

Jim K I am RVing and have in the past year or two with many Canadians. Just this past week several have told me that they have never paid a medical bill. One whose wife had cancer needed a special medication and he paid out of pocket $35,000 for it. His provincial goverment plan later reimbursed him the full cost. None of these folk complained to me about the quality or deliverance of medical services in Canada. Some of these comments above are old. My post today is March 26, 2010. Now nothing is free and these folks readily admit than they pay for this "benefit" through their taxes. It is simply a matter of ones value system. Do you think it is more valuable to as a people but men on the moon or mars or as a people save the life of someone through kidney dialysis for example. Some may say let 'em die, lets go to the moon, another may say save 'em. Value systems of course vary.

The basic concept is good but the quote is shallow. Many of those giving it a five would probably protest when bums, unemployed and victims of "the system" whatever it is start prolling your street. That is what happened in 18th century England and then "the community" felt that it had to do something other than just debtors prison. As far as Locke my opinion of him slipped mightily several quotes ago when he discrinated against and disparaged young man as a class as being somehow different than young women, adult men or adult women. He must have been a sick psychotic of some kind himself. He obviously failed to take care of his own soul or mind.