Mephesdus,

Really? I don't see it that way. I believe the quote is a simple acknowledgement that all governments have weaknesses which can and will be abused if vigilance is not exercised... that it is a necessary evil to be vigilantly controlled, so that it doesn't end up controlling you. The larger the government the more openings for exploitation. Have you read Benjamin Franklin's speech from the Constitutional convention? This is one of my favorite speeches regarding our founding.

"Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." Benjamin Franklin

The passage... ("...I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.") expresses a similar sentiment as I see it. It is also clear to me that the time when it is no longer well administered and the despotism is showing its face has come to pass.

I believe this to be a common sentiment among the founders generally. The founders had a deserved trepidation regarding big government and expanding government, that many today give far too little countenance. It is only natural for governments to try to expand their power to the detriment of liberty and freedom and that the citizens must be ever vigilant in controlling, or as they see fit even abolishing their form of government when it becomes too oppressive, which is eloquently expressed in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Respectfully,
O.A.

yes

My, my, my. M, there are always so many loose ends in what you say that I don't now where to start.

My first philosophy teacher taught me that if one sees what appears to be a contradiction, examine the premises. One of them will be wrong. The "wrong" one here is that you, in fact, DO believe in controlling others, by force when desired. Believing the second half shows the man behind the curtain. It illustrates your desire to use force [or condone its use, the same thing] against others.

"...you are only permitted to exercise your freedom..."??!? By whom? Oh, the force-exercising bullies you "don't believe" in?

how is a "negative impact" defined? and by whom?

"...impact...on society at large" ?? There is no such thing as a group impact. There can be a group of impacts, as when several individuals are affected by something, but events do not happen to a group - only to the people in it.

*ding!* Thank you for playing!

... not if the the law, itself, isn't "good". (And most aren't.)

I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

OR perhaps I believe in the freedom to live your own life and you believe in the control of others.

Mephesdus,

Just so I am clear; I don’t give a wit about the man, the source of the premise, or what his book was about, or his purported anarchist positions. I have no more exposure to the man’s writings beyond the threads original article. I merely agree with the premise I related.

As far as the quote is concerned: Perhaps Brainy Quote and others needs your assistance. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...
There are many more sites that attribute this quote to G.W. and a few that call it unsupported because they can’t find the documentation… I wasn't there… You could be right… :)

There are other documented quotes from Washington that express a similar sentiment:
Here is an excerpt from his Farewell Address in 1796. “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/...

It expresses the same general warning and fears. So it is not beyond the pale to posit that Washington may have spoken those words, or been incorrectly quoted or paraphrased; but he certainly warned of and shared the general sentiment.

Now, it is plain to any objective observer that Washington’s warning was imperative and not without merit as history has proved by multiple examples.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello Mephesdus,


I don't care who the source was. An attack upon the source as apposed to the argument is ad-hominem. I agree with the premise. Would you care to cite an example of a people living harmoniously under a state of coercion?


I do believe in the necessity of limited government as expressed by our founders and others like:
Frederic Bastiat, http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/frog.html
Charles de Montesquieu http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4...
John Locke http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...
John Stuart Mill http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/238...
I can suggest many reputable authors and books. The above links are just quote pages from authors I recommend off the top of my head. I have many more... I would be pleased to offer other essential reads like Thomas Paine- Common Sense and Other Writings...


If you have read Bastiat- The Law, Montesquieu- The Spirit of the Laws, Locke- Two Treatises on Government, or Mill- On Liberty, then you have my answer and it concurs generally with this thought from the Father of this Nation "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington


If you have read these materials and disagree, then if you would kindly make reference to your pertinent disagreements and offer specific notables/ philosophers and their countering arguments, who you believe to have superior reason, perhaps we could contrast and examine them.


Like everyone else, I do not agree 100% with anyone but myself. I do however find that once one has studied at least the aforementioned primary works, one does gain a better understanding of the views you do not presently share. Government is a necessary evil which need only be empowered to protect us and our property from those who would do us ill and vigilance by the populace is required to keep it in check. The government has no business doing most of what it is doing today while failing to do the things authorized by the founding documents. They have been reading extra constitutional powers into it to suit their own desires for a century at least, completely ignoring the spirit and the letter of 9th and 10th amendments... don't even get me started on the "General Welfare" malarkey... the end result is dissension, discord, disharmony... It is wrong no matter which party does it, or for what purpose.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

Respectfully,
O.A.

thanks for the correction.

Berlioz, not Berliotz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUmq1cpc...

well no wonder. I had Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet in my head. Much different than Berliotz!

the Denny's case says it in the article. and I googled the case about the woman

(Yes exactly...you've used the word 'force' way too many times.) You cannot legislate morality, and you can't fix stupid.