“From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.”

Very true, but what if my neighbor doesn't care about his rights? I believe strongly in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The people who would take that right from me don't want it for themselves either.

If you support theft of a rich man's labors, you are striking a dangerous blow to your own highest interests and rights.

O dear we have so far to go, I just hope there is enough runway."...springs identity of our highest interests..." how true of today. This is highly subjective - one man's right's is another man's injustice. It's time we tried another approach - let's not bury our head in the sand with our guns and rights.

Yes, the real enemy of freedom is the desire to be taken care of instead of taking care of oneself. The right to defend carries a risk of having to defend -- sometimes it gets a little messy. I can say, "I shouldn't have to defend my rights -- they are in the Constitution and you should respect them" but as with all declarations, the force to back them up will determine their survival. We have 'rights' only because we say so. The real question is whether we will allow others to have theirs, too.

In a nation where all of the land is under the control of an oligarchy or powerful groups, if you insist that arable land be available to plant foodstuffs for the people, who otherwise have no place to grow food crops, are you violating the rights of those who monpolized ownership and deny use of the land to the people who are starving to death? This is a real-world situation.

If you ever wanted to know why David is called a socialist by some in this forum, his remark above demonstrates why.

Excuse me, but if the remark Archer refers to defines me as a socialist, then capitalism must then be the system that approves extermination of the poor through monopolization of land and capital. I am not a socialist and capitalism is not that system. Benjamin Franklin must have been a socialist by Archer's standard, as he did not apporve unbridled monopolization. And it only makes sense that the right of people to subsist is inextricably connected to their right to eat, which presupposes availabilty of arable land on which to produce crops. It has little to do with twisted ideology, but everything to do with physical reality.

A right is a privilege to which one is justly entitled. By definition it cannot be unjust. Archer's arrow found its mark.

As a comment to another quote, Joe wrote "Driving is not a right, but an entitlement." while here he wrote "A right is a privilege to which one is justly entitled." Maybe I am just stupid, but it seems to me that Joe is saying both that A does not equal B, and that A does equal B.

Few American socialists even realize their socialist leanings. They have great ideas of how things 'should be,' and the solution is government enforcement of these 'ideals'. As well-meaning as they may be, the only authority for implementing such measures resides with the individual. But when the individuals do not line up in a row as instructed, the do-gooders hire their lawyers to argue against freedom and responsibility in exchange for being wards of the state and a false security. Arguing for the poor is not uncommon amongst those that are in fact not poor -- they attempt to give their values power by claiming protection for the poor when in fact there is enough land available for crops to feed the world. The US government pays farmers billions each year to keep their land fallow -- that is to NOT grow anything on it. The idea that we need to tear down property owners to support the property-less is a socialist notion. Capitalism is NOT what America was founded upon -- Independence is what America was originally about. Capitalism unbridled begets a socialist nation like we have today -- America gets A++ for its implementation of unlimited government/corporate credit and the commercialization of all individuals into a corporate, colorable jurisdiction under mounds and mounds of regulations enacted under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. No where will you see the words capitalism in the debates and discussions about American Independence and the US Constitution. Capitalism unchecked IS socialism. The laws are written to protect the rights of individual, living, breathing humans and to limit the collective power of corporations, associations, and governments -- and the invasion of 'free money'. Franklin also said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." The trick is to turn the individuals into corporate entities thus subject to the commercial law. This we do in many, many ways, but number one is the use of promissory notes as money with which come terms and conditions different than using real money. We have given away our rights and beg for more free money/land/security. I'll take the risks of Liberty any day.

" The cause of the poor and needy " This nation was started with the intent, that the poor and needy, have equal opportunity to an Independent life, free from oppression and tyranny. Right on Archer !! "Give me Liberty or give me death " Paying someone not to grow crops, for the sake of market manipulation. A Very sore subject in old farming families, to say the lest !

Thank you to all who contribute to this website, I am glad that I found Liberty Tree. Pro or Con it does not matter as much as the fact that we are exercising our 1st amendment, without which we may well be denied this forum.