“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

hmmm, Bill Clinton's antitheses. There can be neither to much liberty, nor can it be abused. A faculty of birth is replete with in/unalienable rights. With: 'my rights end at you nose' as the standard, when a third party is injured, the infringing party moves from liberty's domain to crime's.

That's the basis of almost all gun control laws and most other laws which take away liberty from those who don't commit crimes. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson. Here is an outstanding quote that really gets to the heart of this issue: "But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." – Jeff Snyder, "Who's Under Assault in the 'Assault Weapon' Ban?", American Rifleman, October 1994, p. 53; excerpted from the Washington Times, August 25, 1994

Most laws were created on the belief that someone may abuse a liberty. That's what liberty is, making your own decisions, then being responsible for the consequences. Drug laws assume you will smoke yourself stoned at every opportunity, and a few may, regardless of laws. But putting a cancer patient in jail for self-medicating is more harmful than letting them use marijuana, which has been shown to be less addictive than coffee, and is not a "gateway" to harder drugs. It should outrage people that you can't use some cold medicines without putting your name on a list of "users." Think about that every time you show your "National ID Card" at the drug store.

Yes, well said; unfortunately Cromwell's British republic ended with his head on the block...

Fortunately for Cromwell his beheading by the Royalists came only after his death, burial, and exhumation. I'm sure he didn't mind much at that point. As far as Cromwell's republic goes, you could exercise all of your natural rights as long as you agreed with Comwell. Otherwise, you just might find yourself being drawn and quartered: not a perfectly shining light for liberty. It took Americans to show the world what a republic should look like. I rate the quote 5 stars; the man somewhat fewer.

I agree with this quote.

The quote is spot on! Because of Parliaments corruption and self interest, Cromwell, in 1653 dissolves Parliament with these words: "You have sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Perhaps we should do the same in America. Cromwell, we need you here, in the new world, to rid our government of corruption and self interest. If only a man existed that could pull us out of the mire - alas we are to deep into the matrix, and the people have been totally lobotomized.

Robert, you've got to be careful though, look at Venezuela. Parliament has been dissolved and all power drawn to the President. For the US, the States need merely to re-assert their sovereignty and just abstain from DC altogether -- they do not need permission!

Archer, you are of course correct though - Archer, Venezuela, having the biggest oil reserves, has been a pawn in the US foreign policy, And, has been subject to CIA and other US interference. Venezuela was never really given a full chance to recover. HC was democratically elected - he is NOT a dictator. I am tire of MSM always report misleading news. I agree, it's time for the states to assert their right and to leave the corruption of DC. Perhaps you should run as an independent???

Venezuela's elections are even more fixed than in the US. This is the direction of socialism. Chavez and Maduro are nothing but classic socialist dictators trying to accomplish what Castro did -- not for the people or justice, but for wealth and power. Central and South America is full of them. Socialist revolutions are bloody tyrannies, with the people even more oppressed than when they started out. Zelaya in Honduras couldn't pull it off, even with help from Chavez in the wings. Zelaya tried to hold an election to change the Constitution -- he had no authority to do so, but distributed ballot boxes throughout the country for a vote. He was arrested with the voting totals already tabulated on his computer -- guess who won? Sure the US gov and CIA is all over Central and South America -- oil and coca are big black markets for them. War is their trade.

Yes, Chavez made sure the people had health care, food, and education - "for wealth or power" I cant believe you said this. The last thing Chavez was money grabbing dictator. This is why the rich hated him. I don't know exactly what resource you are using for your information but you are wrong. Unfortunately, Venezuela is yet another example of American imperialism. What he should have done is have Russian bases in Venezuela. America is making the whole of central America into a CIA operation. You say the CIA are all over central America - then THEY are the elephant in the room. Chavez was elected with a vast majority of the people - it was the CIA and the right wing that tried to fix the election - America is now the world tyrant... And as for the people being more oppressed that has to be a CIA and MSM mem - I'm sorry but you are wrong on this subject which confuses me as you are usually more informed.

Archer, there are many great articles about Chavez here's one of many: Charlie Devereux & Raymond Colitt. 7 March 2013. "Venezuelans' Quality of Life Improved in UN Index Under Chavez". Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on 7 November 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

His death unfortunately was the opportunity the CIA was waiting for. His illness (cancer) is still suspect... otherwise he would have been elected for the fifth time...

Excuse me but the president providing "health care, food, and education" is straight-up totalitarianism, whatever flavor you wish. The UN is a socialist body pushing centralized government upon all, with ultimately global decisions all theirs to make. Honduras has a Constitutional republic, and Chavez worked to help Zelaya remain in power, like so many Central American 'presidents' once they are in power.

Venezuela has nowhere to go, as the current president and his family now own the country's oil reserves, have suspended the Constitution, essentially, installed a puppet 'council' that reports directly to Maduro, and the opposition are being murdered or thrown into jail. Chavez's regime was no different. State control of the people will eventually fail, because the job belongs to the individual people, not some 'leader' on high that controls their food, energy. money, labor, everything. Wake up.

Sure the CIA may be doing their black work, and I am sure they do not really try to bring liberty to any country, only put them under their control. That doesn't make totalitarianism better. I suppose you supported Castro as well? Same story, same oppression for the people. Free health care, food and education? Keep it! I don't want any of that crap, it has been pushed down my throat for years, it's no good. It is only for those that do not want to be free, responsible, or work hard. 'Working for the government is a lot easier -- it comes with many strings attached, but at least I don't have to struggle to survive.' That philosophy is the enemy of self-realization -- it enslaves and promotes slavery.

I could write a book on this but I'm sure that's not what you want - Chavez was a good man and may have been corrupted by the CIA or whoever. America is most definitely not an example of good behavior. In actual fact, if they stopped meddling in the affaires of other countries then the world would be a better place - Central America is in the mess it is because of our interference. As for Cuba Castro pulled them out of the horrors of Bautista. Lastly, America is state controlled and slavery is becoming rampant, or, are you so comfortable you are not noticing what's going on. This I'm afraid is the comfort and apathy of the American people which is causing the deep state to grow in power - Chavez and Castro in comparison are saints...

Perhaps Joan of Arc and Cromwell shouldn't have existed. Perhaps even the Magna Carta was wrong - these were all actions against the deep state of their time. There is NO democracy in America anymore - it is a duopoly that wishes to remain in power and will do anything to remain so.

America was not founded as a democracy -- trying to make it so guarantees a 'deep state' which does the counting. Duopoly is exactly what you get with a 'democracy' of right and left. Freedom and responsibility of the individual FIRST. Robert, you can't really be buying this communist BS, can you? Remember that communism is a democracy -- and all you have to do to see how it devolves is take a look at the last DNC primary 'super-delegates' and chicanery with the votes. Obviously, the common man's vote is nothing but an opinion poll -- an opinion that has been cultivated by those in power.

I bet you are not dependent upon any government services, Robert, and probably earn a comfortable living, travelling world-wide -- why do you treat others as victims in need of saving? It is an elitist view and furthers statism/totalitarianism. You disagree with the preaching of the church but are doing the same thing with socialist government as the church and political power as God. As Mike calls it, a statist theocracy.

I didn't say it was founded as a democracy, please don't exhibit the tactics of the right. And, we do not have a socialist government, if we did America would be a happy place - the wealthy French in their history agreed to pay 90% tax because the poor were in need. Can you imagine that ever happening in the US. I am as far from statism/totalitarianism as Hitler was from embracing the Jewish faith. Look up Woodbine Willy, he was a real Christian, as St Francis was. Anyway, it looks as though we should just part as friends and say our adieu.... take care and be safe....

Good lord, Robert, I can't help being to the 'right' of your leftist arguments. Look, once you tear down religion, the real charity that was there is now compelled to give to the state -- and not voluntarily as before. The wealthy have been and continue to be the benefactors of the causes they value. I am quite sick and tired of the implication that free and responsible people do not care about anybody else -- nonsense!! What you advocate is to FORCE the 'wealthy' (and later everyone) to give to YOUR charities. You advocate laws that compel people to give up their power -- even the majority of it. THAT is socialism, communism, fascism, but NOT liberalism. Liberty fosters personal power. Either you are for liberty and the responsibility that comes with it or you are not. I think not.

Archer, I cannot argue or discuss topics if you continually and woefully turn my statements into your own bidding. I have never said anything you accuse me of instead you assume like so many people do that because I defend the poor and the needed that I am a communist. Look at what I actually say and treat it accordingly, not as you think I say. So, I really must stop this banter with a second adieu...

Robert, I do not think you are a communist, I am saying that you are espousing communism. Your solutions are collectivist in nature -- it is still more of the same 'white knight savior' stuff. My responses take all your other posts into consideration as well. You have stated you supported Castro, Chavez, socialism in France, 'progressive liberalism' in America, taxing the 'rich' to feed the poor, ... what have I missed, this is the same old stuff. You espouse socialist rhetoric as the reasons for your policies -- this would be fine if they were to remain your policies and not put into law. What about respecting others' 'policies'?

Victimhood, poor-me/them attitude, is a rallying cry for mobs. I wish to empower individuals to 'progress', to produce, to shine -- to make a difference, yes? NOT now that I am awakened to 'follow the leader' with the grand plan. This is the primary complaint about the old Church -- they answered the question 'who am I and why am I here?' for me. You do the same whenever you play the blame game for the poor Venezuelans or gay students.

Like it or not, every single person is responsible for getting themselves out of the mess they are in. Thankfully there are many people willing to help. But when helping people becomes a career, the 'helpers' then are in constant need of people in need of help. Hence ministers, doctors, lawyers, police, psychologists and magistrates. The problem becomes obvious as power protects itself, and problems are created in order to keep the 'security/insurance' game going.

Empower people, don't just get them riled up pointing the finger at a common enemy. I suggest you consider your own words, as you do appear to be on the fence with regards to Self-realization.