Good article.

One can also look at it like this: Government took away the rights of blacks and women. And by definition, that is corruption.

People came first, government came second. People without government are entirely free. A free people recognizes, just as birds do, that we have inalienable rights. Government can trample them or government can protect them.

In the case of this country, government was written to protect our rights, and where it was wrong (slavery and women) we finally got it right.

Inalienable rights are the rights of man without government. Ours was designed to protect those rights.

Hi Eric, glad you will read the book (essay). Just to reiterate, I am not pro-republican for any other reason than I am mainly anti-Democrat. I can remember back in the Bush days that every last liberal/ Democrat was speaking evil about Bush's deficits and debt. I agreed with them. Yet, the irony now is those same folks that trashed Bush took over the wheel of the car of deficit spending (that was traveling at 25 mph) and stepped on the gas to speeds unimaginable. How is that fiscally responsible?

Perhaps that is the question that separates our overall opinion as we seem to share much in common.

The short book, for me, helped me to understand better those things I already believed: It is government & man's lust for power that is the problem.

And when I say government is the problem, I mean both Democrats and Republicans- but I'd rather be traveling 25 mph towards the cliff than 75mph. And you are right, ignorance is a problem.

You and I, we seem to be holding an intellectual conversation on the subject, while most Americans haven't a clue one way or another. They vote for politicians as if it were a vote for High School President. Unfortunately, neither party is going to fix the mess.

I'm not saying we are doomed, but I am saying that over a period of 200+ years, we have lost the meaning of freedom and liberty. The slide started slowly, pace picked-up up with FDR and social legislation, and now we have a President who believes he can regulate a person as commerce by requiring (as a requisite to existence) the purchase of health care insurance.

If this is allowed to stand, there is not one thing government can or can't do. The first 100 years were about keeping the power in the hands of the states, with a very limited federal government. The second 100 years were about socialization, that took money from some to give to others. The third 100 years, if ObamaCare stands, will be about control, and our eventual demise.

Deficit spending is just one tiny sign of the bad days to come. Alexis De Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Because in the end, government is not a producer, they are a taker. The more government, the more money the suck from our livelihoods.

Economy can only be stimulated by allowing producers to keep what they have. In any depression or recession, the best thing government can do is reduce in size and reduce spending..

Obama did the opposite. And not only the opposite, he is growing government into a oppressive entity that will not survive the people of this country. One thing all societies that have risen and fallen have in common: they were hard breaks. It is no surprise that our founders wrote the same in the Declaration of Independence.

You are someone I would love to have a discussion, because I know the conversation doesn't end here. I would recommend reading the book linked to your right... http://www.criticalbias.com/media/the_rise_and_fa...

If you wish to continue discussing, contact via form.

P.S.- Fox and the Washington Times are places I read news and opinion; however as a percentage of news sources, they probably account for about 5% of my daily reading. I am a slave to information... so it is one of the reasons I was excited to see someone post here that put some real thought into their comments. :)

Hi Eric, first, thank you for the thoughtful comments! We're not here to delete opposing views. Granted, this website is more to the right than the left, it doesn't mean we want only people that agree- as a matter of fact, we'll take opposing views over 'amens' any day of the week. Argument is great for growing and understanding. When done well, you can either be reaffirmed in your belief, or possibly have a new outlook.

What we agree upon: bailouts. Turning to the first person in writing, I do not believe in the theory of 'too big to fail'. There is a mistaken belief that the world would end unless we bailed out companies. That is absolutely false.

If you truly own your own business, then let me make my case. (And let it be known, I am not pro-republican for any other reason than I am mainly anti-most-Democrats. I think they both are by-and-large clueless, with the Democrats being more so).

Government cannot do anything but take. They do not produce anything. You and I, who could be called modern day farmers, as we toil for a living, government exists due to our abundance. Without us, they cannot exist. Let's say we lived in the old west- no government. We settle somewhere, others come and settle, and the nest thing you know we have a tiny little town. Soon, there is a general merchandise store. Perhaps even a barber.

These shops can exist because you and I have abundance. We trade them some meat for a haircut. Or perhaps some corn for shovel. This all exists without any government. Sooner or later, they first form of government is demanded- the sheriff... because some have discovered the simplicity in theft. Why work, if you can just take from another?

So our small town decided to pay for a sheriff. The sheriff doesn't produce a darn thing, but we all find it in our own best interests to have a sheriff to enforce the 'law'. We can pay for him because we not only have abundance, but we are thriving.

My point is- government on a small scale, or on an extremely large scale, does not produce anything. They exist because we do.

So let's talk about the 'stimulus'. It cost us roughly $1 trillion dollars. Since old debt is paid first, the reality is this will probably end up costing $1.5 trillion. To do what?

I was in California not too long ago and saw this road being paved with stimulus dollars.

I want to talk about a few things regarding this from different angles.

One day down the road, I'm guessing 20-30 years from now, we will begin paying back the debt that came from the stimulus. I might be dead, or I might be really old. Children who have yet to be born will be paying back this debt. In 20-30 years from now, that same road may need to be repaved. I could only imagine how outraged I'd be needing to pay for the paving that took place in 2010, only to fork over more money to pave it again because the road is in such dire condition.

$1 trillion in stimulus. It was supposed to be for jobs, but we all know the waste. However, going to this paving taking place in California, people were employed to pave the road. They received paycheck that were taxed.

Wouldn't it have been far better for the government to just have taken $1 trillion from whoever and redistributed it to others? In effect, that is what they are doing, except the fact much of the money is wasted on bull crap, the $1 trillion they redistributed was far less than $1 trillion. When that worker finally received some of the re-distribution, he was also taxed on it!

The irony of ironies! The government is taking people's money that was already taxed, giving it to others, then taxing it again.

If they really wanted to have made an impact with that $1 trillion, they should have made it simple: Take $1 trillion from some, then give it directly to others (free of tax). At least that way, the people would have more money to do whatever: pay off late mortgage payments; buy a new iPad, whatever. Both scenarios (pay down debt, or purchase goods) is a win/win for the economy. (CONT BELOW)

Inherited a surplus, you mean because Republicans were in control of Congress? Do your research. Then we had 9/11. Oh, let's not forget, Obama spends more in one day than Bush's entire deficit of 2007. So you are bagging on republicans when we have spending the likes we have never seen in history, by a long shot. Any other talking points you have to excuse Obama's mess? http://www.criticalbias.com/2010/07/08/obama-surp...

Because of this comment you wrote, \"she throws a satanic symbol twice\". Other than that, your post was fine.

We accept those that want to be critical (hence the name of the site), but her voice is not off pitch (key), and you know that. So, if your argument stands at that, why should we leave a comment here that is just trashing someone for the sake of trashing? It is one thing not to like the song (we all have our own tastes), but to say she can't sing is wrong.

Renewable energy has been growing due to government subsidies and grants, not because the market place can support it. Nuclear has not moved much because of radicals and regulation that make it so expensive, many businesses don't want to bother with it. So in a nutshell- renewable energy that cannot survive in the market place is growing due to government, while nuclear energy, which can make it in the market place (and thrive) is be thwarted by government.

Go figure. Nuclear is the answer, it is the fringe nut jobs who cannot see this.

The Senate version is different than the house version. The House version makes it effective immediately. His point- don't pass anything until the study is concluded. Why would anyone pass legislation and make it law if there were a possibility of a study saying it was bad? because the Dems want Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed regardless of the outcome of the study. Duh. What fool allows that kind of language into law?

Not a safe haven, a safer bet. Doesn't change the fact that were are buried and unless we act, we will self-destruct.