Those who have nothing to do but to fight "the state" are neither well disposed or industrious and I will refraing on casting an opinion on their man hood. Taking this guy to heart then Washington, Jefferson and all of the rest of the men who have served the so called "state" are enemies. I suggest that those who are obsessed with the so called "state" are that way not because of the size or strenght of the state but because of their own small stature.

What free choices are you denied Anon. Can you be specific!

I repeat for Mike's thick headedness "I have never heard of a pledge of allegiance to THE STATE, only to the NATION. I have no idea what he said in the above aforementioned gobbledegook.

Jim and J know nothing of political language or history. America thak goodness has not suffered the vagaries of European politics, but anyone who has studied even a little knows that the Communists were the lefties and the Fascists were the righties. As far as Big Brother watching over us I experiened it very blatantly today while driving through Texas. Now Texas and some Texans might make a big thing out of appearing to be virulent individualists and independent swaggering cowboys but their highways are littered with Big Brother signs that read, "Maintain Your Vehicle", "Drive Clean Across Texas", "Don't Mess With Texas" etcetera. People complained about Karl Marx's qutote the other day about "working hard" etcetera as being offensive. Is it not offensive to be told by "the state" to maintian your vehicle, etcetera.? If the wild wild west is now espousing Big Brother comments how far have we really come. (Counter point: neither Marx or Texas are guilty of Big Brother tactics just espousing common sense efforts at helping their fellow man.)

The man died 100 years ago and lived to be 70 years old. Assuming he said this even in middle life say age 50 it would have been in 1890, over 120 years ago. If socialism is simply organization and anarchism is disorganization I suggest that they have both come and gone in societies since the dawn of time. When the mechanisms of society no longer function or the underlying principles of the societal fabric are torn asunder by economic forces (drought, or natural disaster or war) anarchy results and then the folk regather and start over building their social systems. So what is new. Summer however forgot the middle way, there is always a middle way. There cannot really be an Anarchist Party, for to be in a party is to be organized with an agenda, the concept of Anarchist Party is an oxymoron.

I like Tom but many things do not get done without team work. Political party labels do often demand to much, group think but a legislative assembly can hadly exist without them. Policy (which is the same root word as politics) is the culmination of millions of individual and independent decisions on who and what to vote for. The parties are a coalescing of these votes and opinions and the policies are a culmination of all of the opiinions and compromise of the two or more positions. If someone has a better way I wish they would bring it forward. But I agree that the bitterness between parties is most undesirerale..

I have never heard of a pledge of allegiance to the state uttered in this my free United States of America. Where does Mike for example get the verbiage that he utters. Our pledge is to the nation and the constitution. What is all of this talk about something called "the state". Can anyone tell me where it is or what it is. Institutions need to be looked at constanly. The middle age church may have been worse that the modern but the modern is better bad what with child abuse etc.

In a free society all of these institutions and "the state" should all be seekers after truth. I would hate to be under the dictatorship of any of them. Often "the state" or the people which is the same thing must check the chruch. and the press, if they become overbearing. Have you never heard of the French Revolution.

Anon if my vote and your vote mean nothing then why are some on this site complaining about the results of the last election. If our vote means nothing then why are some complaining about Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The votes certainly mean something to these complainers.

J Carlton might prefer "be lazy, slacken your production, be and underachiver, cause accidents, and be happy"....like a good little monkey. What negativism you espouse Carlton. Have you ever gone to a High School or College commencement when the students are encouraged to take on the world. I guess you would have the speaker tell the students to drop out, turn on etcetera. And to refer to your fellow humans as ants is oh so sordid and sad.

In my world, my city, my county, my state, and my national government is run by my society. They are one and the same thing. Sorry for you guys like Ben who live in some spintered, disparate, choaotic world where apparently his society is at war with his govenment. All is at peace in my world and society and state are if not a unity at least a cooperative, communicative and well functioning dualism.

When we hear this from our mothers and fathers we accept it dutifully. Garrison Keillor usually signs off with something like this "be good, do good work, be happy". Why should not the state or the military commander or the plant superintendent wish folk the same thing.

Would and could someone please explain the difference between "the society" and "the state". Which is more dictatorial and intrusive etc? I know where I live there are many societal norms and taboos that are much more pervasive and fraught with penalties of being disfavored etc than any laws passed by "the state". Is not "the state" when democratically elected by "the society" simply us in action.

The Mikes, Js and Jims only think in terms of events of the last 10 months while Mises is talking about western civilization. Go figure. A. Woods is more into the real understanding of Mises import.

We dictate our own lives when we vote.

May contain a lot of half truth. The Renaissance was aided and abetted by money, a lot of money. The patrons of the arts were the feudal rulers in Italy. The Borgias etcetera. They were in effect the state and the "city states" of Italy may have been in competition with each other just as states are today. To say it was all just a birth of individual freedom I think is an error. It also was a rediscovery of the ancient arts of the past Roman Civilization which of course had a strong central state. I suggest we all admire freedom but lets not let that twist us into lies and false assumptions and analyses.

I like this quote and it makes me want to be a classical liberal. Egalitarianism does not say that all people are equal in terms of abilities or other qualities such as physical or mental characteristics or in position of ones birth, or wealth only in ones rights. Those conservatives (snobs that they are) who do decide who is or who isn't superior I don't want to have anything to do with.

I don't think it is the essential difference and I don't think eastern civilizations are arrested or petrified. Real freedom is more than freedom from the "state" what ever that is or was. The west for years was under the control or dictatorship of the "church". Western society was arrested and petrified during the Dark Ages. Why do you think they are called that. At the same time civiliztion and culture was flourishing in the east and in the Aztec and Mayan civilizations of the unfound world. I suggest that the Mayan and Aztec worlds were pretty statist with a strong monarchical and religious center. So while the quote may be provocative it gets a one, I withhold four stars because I don't think it is true and think it is misleading and fraught with Western jingoism.

I meant to add that observant, critical, opinionated persons who attack the thoughts, opinions, styles, positions etcetera of others are reactionaries, folk who are getting their strings pulled by every thing around them. A person who gets their strings pulled is not an individualist at all. I meant to give this quore a big fat 5.

The quote is GOOD and the sentiment underskirts the fabric of our democratic society. Our loyalty should be to that society and its Constitution. And Heather Obama is a product of that society and its constitution and he thus deserves the respect, not that "he feels" (how do you happen to know what he feels), and honor as the temporay (4 or 8 years) leader. Has he been set on high anymore than any President. I don't know if I understand your words, are they words of disrespect and dishonor. Now Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

People as a rule are more or less influenced by their environment and the opinions of others. To the extent that they are is the extent to which they are more snobbish, sycophants, and copy cats trying to get ahead. The more that they are not influenced is the degree to which they are more individualist. The man is right on. He has nailed the individualist personality and the true joys of natural freedom.

Anon I would like more research on whether or not Marx ever killed anyone. J as you and your wife probably have experienced in a marriage the two partners give of their abilities to bring in the income, keep the house and raise the kids. No one usually complains about performing to their best abilities nor in providing for the needs of their wives or children. The reason I suggest that "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" works in that environment is LOVE. Maybe we need more love beyond the domestic domain to make it work in the greater world.

Poetic buy simplistic. What are the rights of the individual good for if he cannot join with others, as a majority, and effect policy, law etcetera. That there should be some basic rights that no amount of a majority can interfere with I generally agree but to deny the individual the rights of organizing with and as part of a majority, and to have that majority listened to, would be the biggest loss of freedom that any individual could be dealt. I give a thumbs down just to get your attention.

Jesus said it best "more blessed to give than to receive" If one is able to give then he has probably received much already. As for needs every one is different. My life and my perceived needs are so much different from others of different walks of life it is like relating to aliens. I have spent half a dozen days in the last severl weeks visiting Mexican border towns, Prgresso, Ciudad Acuna. Those folk and many in the US I cannot even relate to. Jesus also said that we will always have the poor with us so I don't know what Anonymous wants me to say. It is also said that a man is never so big as when he stoops to help a child etcetera. Giving of your abilities to a needy world is not a bad way to live but take time for oneself also. If Jesus and Confucious and so many others can say basically what Marx said it is hallelujahed. Yes Marx statement is idealistic but it simply says we should all do our best, no shirkers, no bums, no lazy street people, which of us honor or admire them, well apparently neither did Marx. Assuming that everyone in his idealistic world is performing according to their ability then yes all of them should get their basic needs met. Remember that his statement does not separate people into two classes; the able and the needy. Everyone is able (to a greater and lesser extent) and every one has basic needs.

While true in a sense it is otherwise total bull crap. Of course in the domain of your own private room you are the king of your choices and alternatives but once you walk out into the broad daylight of the street your choices have a different set of realities to face. This quote is stupidity at its best.