Socialist and communist societies have very weak and feeble communities, and very strong tyrants. Some tyrants may rarely be benevolent, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. In the end, an individual can only trust his well being to himself, and then by extension to his family and neighbors. We have a very illustrative social experiment happening right before our eyes. Which nation is more powerful? North or South Korea?

Research has now shown that, although no one is born a hater, people will tend to prefer, trust, and be more comfortable around people like themselves, and that is Nature. It takes a conscious effort of human intellect to overcome the natural instincts that make us want to divide by tribe or clan. It takes a conscious, positive, and continuing effort to bring about a peaceful coexistence with our "different" neighbors. The best way to ensure a peaceful coexistence is not multiculturalism, i.e. maintaining the divisions, but creating a common community. That is, we are all Americans, not African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. The answer is assimilation to a common culture.

Of course FDR's "education in its true sense" is performed in the government indoctrination centers known as public schools. Multiculteralism and moral equivalency is the result.

The degeneracy continues, albeit in a disguised form. Nobody is brasen enough to called someone subhuman, but dare to disagree with the bigots and they will call you a Nazi or Hitler.

David, as you say it was a large portion of the male population, not the entire group. I think one of the things that contributed to women's equality was the settling of the American west. The competence and hard work of the pioneer women showed the men how valuable they were in very difficult circumstances. When these women were given the opportunity to shine, they did, and their men saw it.

Government doesn't divide people into groups (although they exploit differences well for political gain), people divide themselves into groups-human nature in action.

It is the group identity that bothers me about this quote. Condemning or commending entire generations of men or women based upon the actions of an elite group of oligarchical politicians is wrong. Judge people by their individual actions.

Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Affirmative action has to go, because it is obviously the "more" spoken of in the quote, except now it is applied to women and minorities.

We have had free women and free mothers for some time now, and I haven't yet noticed a generation of great men. There have always, in every generation, been great individual men because they have had the freedom to choose greatness. When women became (become in some parts of the world) entirely free, they will have the same choice. Some will be great individuals, some will not.

Joe, change the focus from the free speech clause of the first amendment to the free expression of religion clause and you will also see the liberals' and socialists' hypocricy. Comical indeed.

"Balanced" is the self-appointed elite's attempt to control the voice of the majority.

Obviously Candian values are not American and vice versa. The Canadians I have known have been for the most part good, well-meaning people, but they are certainly not of the same stock as Americans. Painting with the broad brush, we just see the world differently. As an American, I think that some individuals and groups deserve to be hated because they are contemptuous, and I will not be shy in pointing that out even for the harmony of society.

Foolishness disguised as wisdom. Freedom without responsibility is just what the spoiled child cries for.

These are words to live by. I think it is not so much the lack of courage which causes people to want to join the herd, it is simple mental laziness. In other words it is "base and low mind[s]", lack of intellect, and lack of mental discipline. People who are blown about by changing public opinions have not taken the time to form their own philosophy or code of moral conduct. Politicians who rely on public opinion polls come to mind.

A free man will also have to live with the consequences of all of his choices. Staying up too late and not getting to work on time, choosing to drop out of school, going into debt beyond his means, whether to try to beat the red light, and all of those other mundane choices we make everyday; they all have consequences. That is why I believe that today, if it has not always been the case, most people don't really want to be free. They want government there to take responsibility and bail them out. They want to be treated like children so they won't have to deal with the consequences of being a free adult. Government is happy to oblige. It gets more power and control as a result.

One must be free to choose between good and evil to be a moral being. It is as simple as that. Government redistribution of wealth through the tax code is immoral precisely because it takes away the opportunity of the individual to charitably give that wealth away of his own volition.

If only the leftists would stop trying to convince us individualists that we are merely some cog in the machine of society, that we should have no mind or volition of our own, and that it takes a village to raise an idiot, then we might actually be able to live free. Then again, freedom is not the goal of the left.

Individuality = Freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, moralility and immorality. It is the freedom to choose to be charitable or greedy. Anyone who is not allowed to be an individual, or is under some collective control, is not being allowed to be fully human. Individuality bounded by morality is essential to anything good.

A very good definition. However, today's "tolerance" has morphed into governmentally enforced acceptance.

Logan, today's "educated" students are no longer taught to think: they are taught to feel. Being mind numbed robots, they have very little of worth to say. It's not that they can't effectively communicate their emotions, thoughts, problems, or concerns intelligently, they simply don't have any to communicate other that what someone spoonfeeds them. A right to free speech is worth very little if noone has anything to say. As far as the quote goes "Free people don't run to court -- or to the principal -- when they encounter a message they don't like." Free people also don't riot in the streets, burn effigies of popes, saw peoples heads off and burn their corpes when they dislike a phrase or cartoon.

I second that, EGL.

Perhaps it was the renaissance system of patronage that gave some structure to the art that was created, that allowed the artists to create what could be appreciated by many people. The artist was a craftsman whose work had to be pleasing to his customer. Perhaps modern art is an example of the unstructured anarchic system which leads an artist to create what is only pleasing to himself. That is why today's art consists of jars of urine, manure smeared drawings, and "performance art" of self-abuse with razor blades and masturbation.

And yet, it killed the cat.

My experience with artists is that often both the mind and the body are indecent and addled with pot smoke, tattooed and pierced with various pieces of hardware. Fortunately, I've never had much experience with a censor.

Some expressions of free speech are so egregious that they cannot be tolerated. Child pornography is censored for the very reason that it causes the most harm to the most vulnerable. Education is not the answer. The most educated pervert will still want sex with children. In fact, education may even spur his desire. Just like some acts cry out for execution, some works of "art" cry out for censorship. Both, however, should be exercised rarely and judiciously.