S. Maturin

John Locke had two treatises -
HisTwo Treatises was a blow to political absolutism. The first treatise was a refutation of the theory of the divine right of kings, which posits that monarchs derive their authority from God. The second treatise had the most lasting effect, for it set out a theory of politics that found its way into U.S. law.

In this second treatise, Locke maintained that people are naturally tolerant and reasonable, but that without a governing force, a certain amount of chaos and other inconvenience will occur. In his view people are basically pacific, communitarian, and good-natured. This belief contrasts with that of philosopher Thomas Hobbes, which is that if left to their own devices, people will live in violent, selfish anarchy.-- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

(I was researching the definition (s) of LIBERTY/.... ever tried THAT? )

out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

A society that for the most part is spiritually and morally just, whose authority is God would be tolerant and reasonable. When government steps in and becomes the concience of the masses, the God , minus the morality. It is then that people begin to live in violent selfish anarchy. There is no moral imperative to work and support ones own. No moral imperative to control ones lust, leading to addictions, unwanted children. No sanctity of life, leading to a******n murder, eithanasia of the elderly. In a collectivist mind, all belong to all, so there is no respect of property rights. So while we are still free to work ourselve into the grave, the fruits of that labor, no longer belong to us, but to the masses who have come to believe our fruits are their right. So while government is needed for some things, it makes a poor concience and becomes a monstrosity whose end is control.

Richard Rowland

I'm sitting here early Monday morning, reading yesterday's Sunday morning paper's editorial page and other news, stuff. The first story is about finding a rare facsimile of the Declaration of Independence, handed down thru Madison's descendants. Emotions briefly flared, as I thought about the founding of our nation. Plus, the paper featured a story of the late Billy Graham's funeral motorcade.

Things begin to go downhill from there. "United, Delta sever ties with NRA." " Study determines Americans are becoming more self-destructive" Alcohol, drugs, and suicide is causing an increase in the deaths of Americans... However, there is a picture of Ivanka Trump, I wonder why she's referred to as "Ivanka Trump," when she's married to Jarrad Kershner? Although, regarding the other less than pleasant news, her beauty tends to brighten things a bit.

Moving on: The opinion page of the paper featured letters from a couple of anti-Trumper's, which is nothing new. This paper is in the tank for the progressive liberal democratic party. A columnist wrote a piece expressing his opinion, for why arming teachers was a bad idea, and so forth!

The editor of the opinion page also has a piece featured. He tells of interviewing a couple of candidates for U.S. House District 27, one a Republican, the other a Democrat who he thinks gave more compelling answers to his questions than other more polished candidates. He also notes that these two candidates probably don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the position. Snowball's chance is my term, not the editors.

I mention this piece because of the answers the candidates gave the interviewer. Candidate one asks the rhetorical question, " Why do they immigrate illegally?" Candidate one then answers his own question, asserting that legal immigration takes too long and is expensive.

Candidate two: We should be bringing in those who are fleeing Middle Eastern countries and are stuck in refugee camps. The term xenophobic gets tossed in also. Well, you can count me as being amongst the xenophobic crowd, who are probably hopeful that neither of these two candidates stands the proverbial snowballs chance.

As I sat here contemplating, what I had just absorbed, it reaffirmed my thought that we humans are the dumbest animals on the planet. The Native Americans took much of what they knew from nature, of course, we know what happened to them, so perhaps not a good example.

Anyway, using nature as an example: Most who have a bit of knowledge knows that, when a particular species take up residence in an area; an attempt is made to chase out intruding interlopers. However, reason tells us that those being chased off must eventually find a place to call their own, and the cycle repeats. Perhaps the animal world was the first xenophobics?

I should note, the facsimile of the DoI was purchased from Michale O'Mara, O'mara's mother was the great-granddaughter of Col. Robert Lewis Madison Jr., a civil war doctor, by Rubenstein (no first name) for a seven-figure sum. Rubenstein owns five of the documents, four are lent out for display. " Ultamentlly, they'll always be on display," he said. Kudos, for his generosity.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

The ultimate vision for collectivism is that of the New Socialist Man, a perversion that cannot be attained, no matter how Utopian the ideal. Man is not so pliable as was thought by Marxists, which, to some real degree, spelled the end of 70 years of rule.

S. Maturin

The very existence of a liberal progressive democrat is a affirmationof the existence of parasitism.

Those parasites thrive because we, as host creatures ALLOW their sucking out blood and wealth. That blood-sucking will bleed us white until we fight back.

As for morality.. you and I are in good company as borne out by any glancing through the historic records of this great nation document. That's why the liberal educational system of the USA has expended so much effort in revising and erasing all but minor traces of history in the school curricula/curriculums.

Richard Rowland

What a great post, out of the woods. Bravo!

S. Maturin

Conservatives need to be made of 'sterner stuff'. I mean, since when does grade school name-calling shrivel anyone's will or courage.... except when a conservative is called 'xenophobic', 'r****t', misogynist, 'h**er', 'denier', oh, and so many grade school epithets. The wee leftie screams his favorite epithet (the meaning of which he often has no knowledge) , and the spineless conservative shrinks away in terror and shame. "MUMMY!, Somebody called me a BAD name!"

Folks that power has to be wrested from the liberal progressive democrat by force if necessary (as they mob and burn, and scream down others). Adopting the Obama 'love 'em, they'll love you' approach ain't working!

pafret Loc: Northeast

I definitely agree with Hobbes on his nature of man but I do not subscribe to the ideas expressed in his Leviathan. Absolute Monarchy does not lead to liberty, freedom and e******y for all and of the two systems I prefer Lockes libertarian views. That said, there is still the problem of man's innate selfishness, which appears in judicial decisions such as Roe v Wade. While affirming the rights of the individual against majority opinion, the Court neglected the fact that Human life was placed in Jeopardy and this was a fundamental right, preceding Liberty in the Declaration of Independence.

Our government has the tendency to apply and stretch every law to its extreme, so that we go from affirming the right to abort human life for the minority who desired this, to requiring all others to pay for what they consider to be murder. There are many other such actions, which prompt me to say in Hobbesian fashion "If only I were absolute dictator for a day I would eradicate all of these problems" Of course, I am no different than my fellow man and my dictates would likely be upset by tomorrow's dictator. Not to mention I would likely be wrong in most decisions I made because unintended consequences always come into play. In legislation by Monarchy or Republican Democracy, Murphy's Laws rule.

Our governing agents are beset with the demands of selfish cabals who unfortunately use their wealth and power to control government to suit themselves, without regard for others. Locke's egalitaian ideals presuppose a much finer mankind than actually exists. Yet with all of its faults I would rather live under a system that at least pays lip service to my freedom than one that says I am the property of the state to be disposed of in any way desired. Louis VIV's L'etat c'est moi' always struck me as arrogance, hubris, and utter contempt for the rest of his subjects.

S. Maturin

It's almost a 'bone marrow' French quality for the French to feel like Louis-- after all isn't everything all about them? And, that French social pendulum! Subject for another discussion.. for sure. (My dad used to remark, 'Give a Frenchman a hat and a cane, and he will strut the whole day long'.)

I think that thare's an argument to be made for Locke's optimistic view of humankind and even if one disagrees totally with him, his optimism has to be admired if it can be seen as a 'goal setter' view, right?

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

A fine screed, pafret!