“They make a rout about universal liberty, without considering that all that is to be valued, or indeed can be enjoyed by individuals, is private liberty.”

We hold this truth to be self-evident. A foundational principle (complete with an application thereof) lost to the progressives, neocons, socialists, democrats, republicans, patrons (active, supportive, or apathetic thereto) of the statist theocracy infesting this land, and all others that reject the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, inalienable rights of the individual sovereign, and eternal justice.

Interesting and thought provoking but alas I think untrue. I enjoy the fact that for example places like Iraq vote and elect their leaders rather than have a dictator. And I enjoyed immensely when the Berlin Wall came down etcetera. What is that saying about the dictator taking your neighbor and you say nothing about it and then he comes and takes you. I give it a one for interesting but no more because it is very shallow and extemely self-centered like was Dr. Johnson.

(-; Waffler, WHAT? ;-) I smiled at your off topic rambling but anyway, thanks for proving my point.

What is the topic Mike, pray tell? What do the words "All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights among these are ....liberty" mean if not universal liberty. If we researched it we might fight that Johnson was actually railing against the Declaration. And what exactly on earth is your point, I see no point to your post whatever.

Johnson apparently disliked America and the idea of America and its idea about "liberty". In the 1770's he wrote a pamphelt called "Taxation No Tyranny" defending the Coercive Acts and attacking the First Continental Congress. In 1783 upon the signing of The Treaty of Paris ending the fight with Britain he was deeply disturbed over the coming of American independence and its concomitant idea of liberty. Now you know the rest of the story about Dr. Johnson. The above I am sure will be considered "off topic" by Mike of Norwalk.

Inalienable rights are individual, natural-born rights. When we respect the private liberty of ALL, then we have universal liberty -- there is no other way. I do believe this ideal is still to be completely realized. Read the Federalist Papers, Waffler, and you will understand that only from the individual liberty of the people could the Constitution for the USA be chartered -- and the only way to control the servant federal government who are but other citizens acting in accordance with that charter. Understanding power and from whence it comes demostrates that the Founders had a very wise vision of a Free Republic -- it also meant wresting power from those that already had amassed much power over others. It starts with the declaration, then a commitment to stand for it, the question today is 'what do YOU stand for'?

I stand for private liberty for all, and since it is for ALL it is therefore universal. Johnson was an anglophobe. In his 1755 dictionary he defined Oats as: A grain eaten by horses in England and by people in Scotland. He was a shallow self centered bombast, although brilliant. Brillance without a few other qualities is not very appealing.

Waffler, the topic is; there is no liberty without individual liberty. Johnson was sufficiently fluent in the English language, as was evident by the dictionary he authored, that when he wrote men (a plural word - a multiple of man) he knew the grammatical equivalent was 'all'. Knowing that you can't have an 'all' with out an each and every, was the focus of his quote. There is no universal liberty with out individual liberty. So, on the face of the quote, the answer to your question is yes, your comment is off topic. On the subject of who Johnson was, your comment was myopically on topic (having a lot of the whats and whys left out). It is the liberal way, to attack the messenger so to discredit the message. So again, thanks for proving my point.

Waffler, your attempt to redefine grammatical syntax and, to imply there is a forest, with out a single tree, to somehow justify democracy, socialism, the statist theocracy that infests this land or some other form of despotism, tyranny, slavery, etc. (just because a plural is used) is morally bankrupt and supports greater pain, suffering, violence, and poverty.

Mike you have become the real waffler. What BS you have written. I took my handle as an effort at humour. You actually live the waffling life style. Again little Mikey contray to this anglofile hater of all races and ethnicities except Englishmen, this shallow writer of dictionaries, I take joy out of learning of others bursts of freedom and liberty, while they are sometimes fleeting and short lived, democratically elected governments for example give me pleasure to learn about. It is a shallow self-centerd man indeed that can only enjoy his private liberty and not understand the universal liberty of all.

Waffler, you prove my point but once again. Your liberal attack the messenger without an on topic discussion of the message continues. How have I become the real waffler? What BS did I write? Can there be a universal liberty with out individual liberty? Do not all forms of despotism, tyranny and slavery support and end up with pain, suffering, violence, and poverty? little Mikey, I, and all others that truly comprehend individual liberty revel in other's individual liberty, where ever it may be and by what ever degree it is expressed (that is the nature of the free sovereign).

(-; Waffler, I've been smiling all day. I really can't get over your above post. I have become and, live the real waffler life style because I write BS. I like it. According to your post then, am I to understand that in an humorous effort, you have taken on the handle 'Waffler' so that you can write BS?. ;-) OK, now I get it ;-) Oh & BTW thanks, the comedic relief was a welcome divergence.

Mike you and Dr Johnson have it ass backwards. There can be no individual liberty without universal liberty. As Lincoln said "Since I would not be a slave neither would I want to be a master." For a person to have private liberty (what ever that is) while every one else has no liberty at all would be a sick world do not agree? And most nominal healthy personalities would tire of their private liberty fairly quickly. Now the those who are into such things as sex slavery and stuff like that of course would love to have and take their private liberties out on any body they choose. Are those the private liberties you are defending? Is it really liberty with others privates that you are all about?

Waffler, you really are a sick socialist and don't have the slightest clue or understanding of what the Law of Nature and of Nature's God, unalienable rights or justice is/are. Can you really only parrot the empty rhetoric of your carnal overlords and slave master of choice? WOW, that's really sad. As Lincoln said (your example), says noting of a pluralism or universal, it was a specific to himself. It was a prime example of individual liberty. I emphatically DO NOT AGREE ! ! ! I do profess that where no one has liberty, that is a sick world. I also am gladdened in my heart and entire being when any one individual is liberated or free (in and of itself, not conditioned on others) Only a sick socialist or slave at heart and mind would tire of individual or private liberty. Individual liberty (I don't know where you came up with the term private liberty unless it was solely to make a sick punch line at the end of your diatribe) is not isolation from other people if that is what you are trying to infer. If you are equating private with individual, I can go with that. If I were to live without paying enforced larceny (income tax, funny money, etcl) compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, etc. I would be exceedingly happy, and my continuing experience would be that of joy. I would then be in a stronger place to help my neighbors. What does sex slavery have to do with private liberty? The answer, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ! ! ! Sex slavery is an antithesis of individual freedom and liberty and a most heinous crime, grossly violating law, rights and justice. You are admittedly into slavery as you are for the forced extraction of one's labors at gun point and confiscation of all material wealth. Do you get sexual pleasure out of such force? Because you continually and intentionally mis-define individual / private / sovereign / ownership / freedom / liberty, law / rights / justice and all else that is moral and Constitutionally based and, your example is violence in a sexual context, is that what you are all about? I remember you being asked often if rape and pedophilia were permissible, or at least OK, if the majority said it was. Your non-answer with your above comment speaks volumes. That is not what I am all about, I am all about individual freedom and liberty.

Waffler, you have to define universal liberty. I would define individual liberty (or private liberty as per the quote) as the free exercise of unalienable rights. A Right(s): is an eternally omnipresent and laissez-faire warrant, enabling each and every being's acts, affairs, desires, interests, issues, just locutions, thoughts, works, etc., all such being within the bounds of active non-infringement on another. Universal liberty would be when each and every, any and all experience liberty and freedom as individuals united. If all but one has liberty then 'all' do not and, there is no universal liberty. Waffler, my question then to you is: what is ass backward, how can all have liberty united with out each and every having liberty first?