“The tyranny of the many would be when one body takes over the rights of others, and then exercises its power to change the laws in its favor.”

Seems it unclear does it as well to you also as to me so much?

Licensing is the first immoral fulfillment to this quote that comes to mind. Then of course there is compelled compliance, victimless crimes, theft of the noble labor's fruits, to be held indefinitely without charge or Habeas Corpus, being secure in one's persons, houses, papers, and effects without authorized torture as an interrogation technique, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, etc., etc., etc.

To scratch the surface of the meaning of this quote, start with google.com, click the videos tab, top 100, and watch the videos on 9/11 and America, Freedom to Fascism, hurry, they are free and may not be there tomorrow

"One body" in the U.S. refers to the congress and senate. Democrats and republicans push their "bi-partisan" agenda, which are nearly identical, at the exclusion of other parties (i.e. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, etc.). We should be "MULTI-partisan" not "BI".

Sounds like the Radical Religious Right and GOP of today. I long for the days of a middle ground... which is what describes the Democrats (for most of America has no idea what a true liberal left really is, mistaking the center for left today primarilly due to the strong facist tendencies of the RRRGOP).

Sounds like the Socialist-Democracy of the American bi-partisan alliance. People like Anon always argue against the GOP's legislating morality on the people of America, but, all the while, he supports the same damnable philosophy on his own side. Whether we're forced to accept "Radical Religious Right", or the Radical Atheistic Left (and I don't mean that all Leftists are Atheists, or all Atheists are Leftists), we're still forced. Our two-party systems are fighting for the same end result; the only differences are the means to get America there. I am no fan of Bush, but as I said in the 2004 election: Regardless who wins, Bush or Kerry, I'm going to lose my liberty either way; but, at least with Bush, I'd do it as an American.

Tomorrow, vote for the end of one party rule.

Both parties are bad -- REAL bad. Both are tools of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Fed. It is a sick joke. We are led to the slaughter by these jackals. They have secured their power and are removing our protections from them. America IS a socialist country now -- it is already done -- the question is how far are we going to let them take us towards fascism. Know this, it IS fascism, and both parties further the cause from each end. The best we can do is admit it, learn from it, and boycott it -- then the next revolution will come -- but if we are not smart, we will get an even worse system of government after that. We must be educated in Liberty -- no one will teach us, we are the carriers of that banner and we must take the responsibility of undergoing the fatigue of supporting it. When we are angry enough, we will do it -- let's hope it will not be too late.

What I would like to know is how you all intend to prevent the same degree of corruption from prevailing after the new revolution eliminates the current corrupt governing bodies, judicial, executive, and legislative. Or are you just going to replace the old corruption with new corruption? And while this revolution is taking place, what will keep the foreign enemies of the nation from invading it? Some of you tend to whine over the tyranny you claim prevails in America today, as though it were on a par with the totalitarian regimes of the world that rule over one third of the world's population. Yesterday I heard one scientific fool on a television program compare America's enforcement of restrictive building codes to totalitarianism, and point to China's lax enforcement of these codes as though that were a sign of greater freedom, rather than of corruption or ineptitude. America is in trouble, no doubt, as much from those who want to fix it by revolution as by those who have corrupted it.

Archer, said well. David, it all goes back to personal responsibility with adequate ability to enforce penalties. In Texas, where there is no existence of a contractor's license the quality of construction far exceeds that of Nevada where building is highly regulated and licensed. If someone builds below that which is considered safe or adequate (code), and an injury (or worse) results, that individual and/or company should be punished accordingly (a slap on the wrist to capital punishment) And as to your question, "Who". I have met many individuals within the Libertarian and Constitutional parties that are ready, willing, and able to adequately fill the positions now help by the fascists/socialists. AND, just because the American facade is only 1 or 2 steps behind the more insidious regimes, they are only tiny quick steps.

Bravo, Archer!

Uh, Mike, uh, I did not ask "Who," Mike. What I did ask, however, was not answered. And it seems that the point of each of my comments was lost. If you spent a couple of months living in North Korea or Cuba or China, I bet you would stop comparing America's situation with that of those countries.

You keep foreign enemies from invading the U.S. by eliminating gun laws and requiring each law abiding citizen to buy an automatic rifle, a pistol, and several thousand rounds of ammo for them, and carry them at all times. No country will invade, knowing every citizen is armed. Don't you find It ironic we, who have the 2nd Amendment, are disarming the militias (the people) of Iraq? Why would you let America get as bad as North Korea before you decide to stop government tyranny, instead of stopping it before you can't? Electing a Libertarian President is a step in the right direction. You end corruption by putting term limits on all political offices. The tyranny and corruption of Kennedy (and others) has lasted too long. Let them find gainful employment elsewhere and earn a salary, like the majority of us, instead of living beyond the means of the American public.

Hey, Joe, what about the tanks, bazookas, mortars, armored personnel carriers, artillery, fighter jets, helicopters, and all the other neat military weapons the citizens don't carry? Oh, you forgot. The invading forces didn't forget.

"You end corruption by putting term limits on all political offices." Funny man.

Reston, are you insane, oh, I forgot, you are insane. The middle ground describes the democrats, surely you jest. Pelosi , Harry and the bunch are so far left that they would probably be kicked out of the communist party.

Determining the 'middle ground' requires first defining the scale. Depending on how the scale is defined, middle ground can be in between freedom and servitude -- partially free and partially indentured? Socialism could be considered the center of the scale between communism and fascism. Establishment vs. non-establishment -- some things cannot be divided or blurred, either you have a principle or you don't. Political parties can be clearly defined by where they place individual responsibility. There is no middle ground between Life and Death -- there is no real difference between a half-alive zombie and a half-dead zombie.

As soon as you can define anything or group of things, there will be a right and left, top and bottom, and front and back. Each of us is in the center, in the middle, everyone else is either to the left, right, above, below, front, and/or behind you. Trying to get everyone to the center is impossible. Respecting each other's 'spheres' is a good start to mutual cooperation. It is the taking from each other without agreement that is the primary cause of distress between people -- their justifications are merely popular support, not any true claim. ;-)