You look to much to authority with out questioning Archer. I have a picture of Madison's Montpelier on my dining room wall. I respect the founders and framers. I don't honor them as gods or hang on their every word taken out of context. I am a free man to think and analyse. By your remark you are nothing but a queslinq, nonthinking kiss upper.

Okay I am constructing a problem and asking for those interested to solve it. Some on this website abhor the concept of "the state" but then support the idea of more power to "the states" and support the idea that "the state" should appoint Senators. Does no one see the dichotomy or confusion that I see in people who claim they are for liberty of the individual and against "the state" and then turn around and take the total other position of state appointed reprsentatives over the people and "We the States" rather then "We the People"?

As Eisenhower said "We are a nation of law not men". Authority comes from knowledge, information, facts. Any scholar or serious student looks to authoritative sources. You guys are mostly flip not thoughtful or authoritative. Your flippancy comes from your disdain for authority or authoritatve sources, facts, information. Give me earnest persons and opinions and let the flip ones just melt into oblivion. LOL I never get mad. (PS: The handle is Waffler not Waff)

I agree with Carlton about the age 5 thing. Have you ever driven past a school bus and the children make funny faces at you or otherwise disrespect others. Respect and moral uprightness comes after the age of 5. I think that respect for others and their rights is what the 5 year olds are unaware of and Carlton and the Libertarians choose to ignore. Some people never grow up.

What you always unbelievable miss Anon is that the individuals right to self-rule includes his right to join with others and when those others who join him reach 51% they can shove it up the rest so to speak. America did not change that, the Constitution did not change that. That scenario had existed down through the ages in different and varying formats although it had been hijacked by monarchs, nobles, and dictators and minorities. Well America and The Constitution reinstituted it and imporved it and we continue to do so. It is interesting Anon that you agree with J B Wulff. Maybe he talks better than I but I am saying the same thing "let the shot heard round the world" that government can be run by the people continue. (Wulff's phraesology "peoples' state" I am sure could be read misread by some but I understand his meaning as it stood over and against the monarchies and minority rulers of Europe.)

I always try to shun those who fail to respect knowledge, information and facts.

Archer is right about the power and submission thing. The south had the political power, the Supreme Court Decisions (Dred Scott) and Lincoln and the Repus were going to change that balance. The South said hell no and tried to walk away and keep their slavery but they did not get very far. Sponner is a simple a&& and it is natural that Archer kisses up to him.

By hearts minds and votes I only meant to imply that if 51 percent say no spitting on the sidewalk they have the right to enforce it even against the likes of an Archer or Carlton. If Libertarians insist on spitting on the sidewalk string 'em up high I say.

So Carlton and by associaton RBESRQ do not believe in authority or in someone who actually knows soemting. People who know things are by nature authoritative and those who listen and leanr from them are the smart ones. What would you guys prefer? We have been ruled by the know nothings for far to long! I'll take the wisdom, authority, and intelleigence of the majority to the minority every time, even when I am wrong for that is the wisdom of the ages. You guys to be honest would have to agree that if 51 percent agreed with your nonsense then by deduction your nonsense should be considered such because the majority agrees with you. For your philosophical position is NEVER AGREE WITH A MAJORITY"

The Republican Party was an abolitionist party. The south knew and saw the handwriting on the wall. Anyone is a fool that does not know this stuff. First causes and immediate causes may be different but the underlying cause was slavery and differing opinions about it. The South knew they had to do something about their strange institution and they planned on it vaguely so to speak to end it some day some way but wanted to think about for another 100 years or so. It is a little like todays Republicans. They know health care needs to be reformed and they will someday someway, just give them a little time. They had 20 years under Pres leadership. As a key politico said the other day "Republicans never support anything".

Why do you say such a thing Carlton? So you consider truth telling to be an authoritarian thing? Hm strange, strange indeed! .

Some detest the "state" and then turn around and petition for more power to be given to "the states". Does not anyone see a problem with their logic? Historically the states or some of them stepped on the rights of minority individuals (native Americans. descendants of slaves) and the Feds defended individuals from the state.

The war was fought because The Constitution contained a fatal flaw. It gave the slave holding states the right to count male slaves as part of the population to be considered when determining the number of Representatives to House Chamber of the Congress. Yet and again I say yet these self same male slaves could not vote. Thus as the slave population increase by births and importation the power and strangle hold of the southern slave states over the Union increased. The framers were good men and they tried their best but the document was a compromise and a best guess at how to give the colonies a good government. They were not political gods as some idealists would like us to think. And certainly Lysander was not.

The strength Spooner should be talking about in a civilized society is the strength of logic, argument and debate. Those with the superiour position in such a society who have the hearts and minds and votes of the majority should and do form the government. While there is an aspect to the term self-government which means that individuals should look to themselves to do right and be right it does not nor was it meant to exclude the right of the self same folk to form a government and to codify laws as a majority of these self-governer folk desire. As I am sure all know that from the very beginning of our experience we have had some who have failed in governing themselves, they would get drunk, or spit on the floor, steal horses etcetera. Against these minority the majority saw fit to set up laws, etcetera. Again for lack of a better word I think Lysander is silly.

Contrary my dear Anon, I find Spooner to be the simplest of persons ever quoted on these pages. Yes consensus and majority rule always leaves someone (usually the minority) disgruntled for a time. Wisdom and patience and experience teaches most that the tide of opinion will change. The opposite of majority rule (which is true self-governement) is either dictatorship, monarchy or in the absence of something like that anarchy. The idea of self-government was not that each individual govern themselves alone but that the majority of individuals in concert form a government for the whole. The Kings and nobility of Europe never thought such a thing possible. Our Constitution and its endurance and perserverance has proven otherwise. Anon can you give examples of lack of respect of individual rights in America in absolute terms and by comparison, to the degree of individual rights ecperienced anywhere else on planet earth.

Good comments y'all. I have a serious question however for those he think it should have said "We the States". I know many on the right and on this web site abhor the "state" as an albatross around the people's neck and as an instrument of socialist or dictatorial oppression but when it comes to the rights of American provinces these same folks speak up for "the state". There are times when the powers in Washington have come to the aid of individuals who have issues with "the state" as experienced in individual provinces. So for some the concept of the "state" is to be abhorred except when the concept is prefered as here over and against the concept of "the people".

Obviously the matter would be a quantum leap worse if the power resided in a MINORITY of the community. It is sad to see such ignorant blathering from a founding father or at least a framer.

Losers write history also but most people take little interest in losers so they just don't read them. In a nation and world of free press anyone can write anything.

Reminds of heatlh care debate. Dole said he has worked on the problem for 30 years. Repubs now say Demos are rushing a solution but they did nothing during 20 years of Prez reign and a Rupub Congress. Some said we could not "rush" race relations and their we sat for 100 years. There is always a time to get up and get off the pot. Taken alone the quote is reasonable, I wonder though if this philosopher ever stopped thinking and started acting.

Thats great Anon. I think most people and most politicians have and can see common ground if we ever drop our posturing, political labels and alignments. Just talk plain sense.

I have always felt that Archer has no sense of equanimity, humour or levity. He just proved it above.

Anon I like your phraseoloyg "responsible have acquired". I am all for responsible wealtrh, it is those other guys I don't like. Like Madoff, mountaintop removal coal miners, employers of illegal aliens etc. The get rich by any means and screw your neighbor and your country crowd. Without government and its policy we would have been even more of a wasteland than we already are. As far as I am concerned the fascists can go right ahead and put all the polluters, rip off artists and pigs in jail.

You all need to watch more of American Greed on CNBC. The problem with health care in this country is that the insurance moguls are in it for the money. A guy who has no qualms about ripping off anyone and every one in order to feed his greedy stockholders and investors can make a million literally. In the early '80's there was a big move to the HMO model. The guys that figured out how to do made a killing. Some have called it the biggest transfer of wealth event in this our country.

The world is also full of capitalists who grudge the little guy having anything and attempt to take his last farthing. Wealth and acquisitiviness is basically about showing off and upstaging your friends, neighbors and fellow man. On the other hand their are many who like to see others do well, be well and successful. I took my '69 Riviera out for a spin yesterday. The compliments I and it received your heart warming. The folk genuinely got a kick out of seeing a guy driving around in such a beautiful machine. I don't think peopel grudge the Queen. I think Aesop is full of it here.

Yep take a deep breath before you change your tuen or tempeerature.