In the conflict of ideas, there are so many confusing dynamics playing against each other, making it hard to determine what the just and moral course is. In the battle between freedom and security, it is difficult to know which is the correct path. To learn what's wrong with America and why we're having trouble finding the answers to our pressing questions, we have to delve deeper.

America faces many problems, but the root cause of many of our conflicts is the notion, still accepted by many, that there are individual rights. The concept of individual rights has been suggested throughout history by various philosophers, writers, and nayer-do-wells, but it took firm root in the United States from the very beginning. The founding documents of the country expressed the sentiment that all men are created equal, and that they are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was a very dangerous package to offer citizens of a new country. With no real template to work from, they were taking a gamble hoping that newly free people would contribute to society rather than pursuing their own health and well-being. It seems apparent that the founders did not adequately ponder the potential consequences of this, and their decision would have long-lasting negative consequences that continue to this day. Thankfully, this offer of individual rights was not absolute. The founding fathers had at least a basic understanding that society as a whole would need to ensure individual rights were not granted to all for the experiment to be even a marginal success.

The institution of slavery maintained a permanent labor class to ensure that important work was not left undone. This allowed a single family on a plantation to tend to a far larger field of crops, which benefited the entire nation in the form of expanded volume and reduced cost for food, clothing, and other crucial crops like tobacco. A burgeoning nation such as ours rested on very tenuous ground, particularly as our allies were thousands of miles across an ocean, so an effective and efficient food supply was of critical importance. Slaves helped to ensure that the country never starved. One issue faced was deciding who could be made a slave and who was to be considered a free man. Fortunately, there was a simple solution. Since most land and other property were already owned by white men, it was determined that they were the most natural leaders. The fact that blacks were enslaved by white men made clear that they were of an inferior status. A color-coding system was instituted, whereby those with dark skin were deemed to be the slaves to be employed, supervised, cared for, and fed by the white landowners. While many among the slaves despised this situation, it ultimately helped society as a whole, and it is difficult to imagine how they could make a living on their own anyway. After all, where is one to live without property? Aside from that, the desires of the slaves themselves are ultimately not relevant. Serving society's interest was ultimately the most important thing, regardless of any slight the slaves felt. The most enlightened slaves understood that serving the interest of society as a whole was more important than their own personal independence, and that white male land-owners were better suited for making decisions than they themselves were.

Also important was the individual rights withheld from children. For a nation that would soon be learning to industrialize, having a sea of workers with small fingers and bodies was of critical importance. Only a small body could fit into the dangerous crevices of some machines, and servicing these machines was important work that kept the country's economy moving. Had individual rights been granted to children, it might not have been so easy to get them working the important 20 hour shifts in the factory making shoes or whatever other important product was being manufactured. As children are produced from the bodies of adults, adults naturally have ultimate dominion over them. They wouldn't be alive without the actions of their parents, so they should ultimately serve their parents' interest until they reach the age of majority, at which time the collective interest determines their best use in society.

Another important distinction made was that between men and women. From the early days of the country's founding, and indeed for centuries before, it was understood that while men were suited to lead, women were better suited to keep after the domestic responsibilities, and to raise children. Women were not given equal individual rights because it was understood that they might choose to do something other than their natural biological imperative. While women are often confused about their own desires for their life, it has been proven throughout much of history that they are most effective at maintaining the home and raising children, with teaching and sewing being two notable (yet still related) exceptions. Granting women the right to do jobs that men do creates a stark imbalance in the homes of America.

In recent years, many of these important bulwarks against wholesale individualism have been abandoned. Society as a whole is suffering thanks to this long-standing and ever-increasing notion that human beings have individual rights. Blacks and women fought long battles to assert individual rights for themselves, and the results for society have been disastrous. Food and clothing prices have climbed, and real wages have declined as women and minorities have entered the environment of paid labor. With so many more potential workers to choose from, an employer does not need to pay as much to find an employee. As wages decline, households find themselves with no parent at home to take care of the house and the children. With slavery now abolished, this puts a household in a tough financial position. Hiring a live-in maid or a nanny can be a very expensive endeavor, and that potentially leaves another household without a woman taking care of it. Many of the more enlightened parts of the Muslim world understand this problem and maintain control over their women. Women are not allowed to leave the house without their husbands, and they are expected to take care of the household duties and rearing the children, rather than venturing out into the world to do a man's job.

Additionally, the public has been granted dangerous rights, like a right to privacy. The notion that society should not be able to know what an individual is doing with his or her life is absurd on its face. Knowing what an individual is doing at every moment is the best way to determine if that individual is benefiting society. An individual who is not benefiting society must be encouraged to engage in productive behavior. If he continues to do things that do not benefit society (like watching movies for entertainment as opposed to education, or playing a board game with his friends) he needs to be re-educated in the proper manner of serving society. An individual who continues to serve his own interests must be eliminated for the benefit and promotion of the society. Allowing an individual right to privacy obviously makes enforcement of such a policy far more difficult, and quite frankly there is no important reason that an individual should be granted a right to privacy. Privacy for individuals never promotes the collective interest.

Also absurd is the notion that individuals should have an individual right to freedom of speech. Speech is a very dangerous tool, and no individual should be permitted to question the system of governance that the collective society has decided upon. To allow such speech tears at the very fiber that holds the collective society together. Even to allow a person to express an emotion such as sadness is dangerous for a society interested in maintaining the health and well-being of its members. Emotions often spread in a contagious manner, so any negative emotions need to be eliminated before they harm the society as a whole, depressing productivity and immobilizing important members of society.

The right to bear firearms allegedly granted by the Constitution is also a fairly ridiculous construct. The language of the Amendment clearly indicates that the right is a collective right held by well-regulated militias, that is, the enforcement arm of the collective interest. Clearly it does not serve society's interest to have individuals who are armed and able to kill members of the society without the permission of the collective interest. There is no valid reason for a person to ever be armed unless he is acting as an agent of the collective interest. Indeed, if the collective interest determines that a person is not serving society and needs to be eliminated, allowing them to be armed so that they might defend their life is patently absurd. An individual should never have the need to defend himself so long as he serves the collective interest efficiently and obediently, and it is the collective interest that ought to determine when he has served his purpose, not the individual himself. To think that we could end up with millions of unliquidated and unemployed senior citizens to care for thanks to an individual right to bear arms defending them is a daunting thought indeed. The collective interest must be served by doing away with such persons before they become a burden on society. Developing a mock home where the elderly are allegedly taken may help to quell some of the outrage expressed by persons with individualist sympathies, if they are too numerous to eliminate.

4/11/2008 12:31:08 AM

Thankfully, there are new limitations being imposed on individual rights which might help to stop the harm being done to society in the name of individual rights. Legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President limits the supposed right to privacy by allowing the President to conduct some surveillance without having to notify a court. Other legislation passed has suspended in certain circumstances the right to habeas corpus, allowing the President to hold dangerous persons without having to bring charges against them. Free speech zones have been established at various times and places in the country that allow individuals to express themselves without polluting the rest of the society with their thoughts, though these too will hopefully be done away with and replaced with a policy of eliminating individuals who say things that might harm the social cohesion of the society. Indeed, any controversial speech should be treated as subversive for safety's sake. It is not always easy to determine if speech is subversive when first uttered, and it often resonates long after it has been spoken, so silencing any speech that comes close is an important objective to maintaining a stable and productive society. Ultimately, speech should be considered just as dangerous and extraneous as firearms.

Furthermore, there are now rumblings in Congress to socialize the nation's healthcare in some way or another, allowing the government to determine who gets care and when, promoting the health of society as a whole. Many have high hopes that this will eventually result in a government very interested in the exercise and personal habits of members of society. The government has also engaged in torture of enemies of the United States for the purpose of extracting information about future terrorist acts. This torture is critically important to promote our intelligence interests, and similar tactics should be employed for domestic criminal enterprises as well. Catching one burglar is a good thing, but using information from enhanced interrogation of that burglar may lead to several more arrests of potential burglars. Removing the right of habeas corpus for these criminals as well seems to be an excellent idea.

An important goal for the near future will be to impose more direct democracy on the country, allowing a majority vote to appropriate property and to make decisions on which individuals have served out their purpose. Also important will be enlisting all citizens into the military to support incursions into another nations to appropriate natural resources. Individuals in other countries are no more deserving of an individual right to life than individuals of this country, and if taking their oil or food benefits society as a whole, it is not only just but a moral imperative that we invade the country and appropriate the resources in question. Of course, disposing of the individual or individuals who own the resources is an important initial task, because there will always be resentment when an unenlightened individual has his property appropriated by the collective interest.

The writer Ayn Rand has said that an individual is the smallest minority, and that one cannot be said to be a defender of minorities if one is not a defender of the individual(1). This is true, which is why it is so important that we do away with individual rights. Minorities and individuals should not have any rights that do not promote the interests of society as a whole, and an individual will rarely choose on his own to help society, so force is the only alternative to compel his action. In some cases of great need, it may even be necessary to directly appropriate an individual's property and dispose of the individual so that the individual's property can be used by the society as a whole without burdening the society with the task of caring for the newly-homeless individual. This must be done with the most careful tact and compassion, not for the individual, but for the society that stands to benefit. One person's suffering is acceptable if it promotes the interests of the society as a whole, and even the individual's suffering can be dealt with diligently by disposing of the individual. It is important to develop a thick skin for dealing with the suffering of individuals, because otherwise it becomes too easy for the society to falter when too much attention is paid to the suffering of a particular individual. If an individual becomes too great a burden on society, he must be eliminated before he endangers the rest of the society.

It is critically important that we do away with the notion that individuals have individual rights, before some of these individuals decide to do away with society. The tyranny of individualism cannot be allowed to survive if society is to function diligently and efficiently. The notion that individuals can do what they want so long as they do not hurt others must be smothered, and indeed, some individualists must be smothered if we are to make progress into a brave new world where society is more important than the individual. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani perhaps put it best when he said that, "What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."(2)

(1)Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: Signet, 1964.

(2) No author cited. (2004, March 20). 'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime. New York Times.
Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260


So I worked pretty hard on this. Comments?

4/11/2008 12:31:43 AM

Fuck you, commie scum


wish you were here in the 40s so you'd be hanged and shot


Suspend individual rights? What kind of trolling is this?

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 12:45:53 AM

Quote :

"LiusClues: Comments?"

Comment #1

Essay needs headings and subheadings.



Will get to Comment #2 when I finish reading it...

4/11/2008 1:25:27 AM

It is so smug of you to write something like this under the protective umbrella of freedoms that democracy in America allows you.


Try living in one of your authoritarian "paradises". You wont have time to write cute little essays on the internet, let alone the right to express yourself in such a manner.

4/11/2008 1:40:15 AM

I certainly hope this is satire.

4/11/2008 1:41:01 AM

Quote :

"It is so smug of you to write something like this under the protective umbrella of freedoms that democracy in America allows you."

Why not use all of the available resources to achieve your ends? It would be silly to tie my hands. What's wrong with exploiting a corrupt system to change it?

Quote :

"I certainly hope this is satire."

A well-reasoned reply.

4/11/2008 1:43:19 AM

wait

some of you read that?

4/11/2008 1:44:27 AM

You know I think killing an animal for food is wrong so I am a vegetarian. Am I calling for meat to be banned from restaurants or grocery stores?

No


Because I'm not a hypocrite or a coward.

Be the change you want to see.


"I'm not going to tie my hands to exploit a corrupt system" give me a break. You're a messageboard user not Che Guevarra.

4/11/2008 1:46:19 AM

Why does anybody post on a message board but to win hearts and minds?

4/11/2008 1:47:18 AM

Quote :

"A well-reasoned reply."

To a logically flawless piece.

The tone of your response indicates though that you are apparently not kidding. Which apparently makes this a work not of satire but of self-parody. Bravo.

4/11/2008 1:48:04 AM

Based on the previews, I'd say whatever the hell this thing's about is a box office smash.

4/11/2008 1:48:23 AM

Care to engage me in debate or is this as much of a Neo-Con echo chamber as it appears? ^^

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:48 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 1:48:45 AM

Neocons? where?

There aren't enough rolly-eyes in the world.

4/11/2008 1:49:54 AM

You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to tell you people what to do, but not adhere to it myself

4/11/2008 1:50:51 AM

^^^ Hey, news for you - not everyone who disagrees with your highly authoritarian, collectivist philosophy is a "neo-con."

And something tells me based upon your history that you're not exactly interested in an elevated debate so much as condemning those who disagree with you as "neo-cons," "stupid Americans," and the like. Forgive me if I'm being prejudiced by experience.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : Really.]

4/11/2008 1:51:02 AM

Look can we discuss my piece in this thread? Would that be okay, since this is a thread dedicated to discussing my work?

Quote :

""stupid Americans,""

Point out a single place I've ever said this.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 1:51:17 AM

Hey give up your own individual rights for a week so we dont have to put up with you exercising your first amendment right you commie nut

4/11/2008 1:54:22 AM

first of all, good luck getting much discussion of your work, because i don't think many people are going to read it.

second, we are discussing your work. we're discussing how the author has little to no credibility (which is part of why people aren't going to read it).

4/11/2008 1:55:27 AM

^

4/11/2008 1:56:25 AM

Quote :

"first of all, good luck getting much discussion of your work, because i don't think many people are going to read it. "

Then why are they posting in the thread?

Quote :

"second, we are discussing your work. we're discussing how the author has little to no credibility (which is part of why people aren't going to read it)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

4/11/2008 1:57:00 AM

you have no credibility, because you're a fucking hypocrite

you advocate a system you aren't willing to subscribe to yourself


Now go write a paper about how people shouldnt be allowed to post in online messageboards

4/11/2008 1:59:10 AM

Quote :

"Look can we discuss my piece in this thread? Would that be okay, since this is a thread dedicated to discussing my work?"

Fine. It is the textbook definition of fascism. The kind espoused by Mussolini and the "Third Way" parties back in the 30's. Right down to the "rampant individualism must be stopped" and "some people may have to be smothered." And frankly, if the 20th century isn't instructive enough about how political philosophies that call for violence against and all dissenters hasn't been a lesson enough in how much death and human misery these "philosophies" bring about, just about nothing is going to convince you.

Quote :

"Point out a single place I've ever said this."

You can't be serious. You want me to start dredging up threads where you routinely shout down anyone and everyone who disagrees with your rigid authoritarian thinking? Are you asking for ridicule now?

4/11/2008 1:59:20 AM

Christ.

If people would get around to debating it, maybe I could just read the quotes rather that block of ASCII soup. I've only read a few paragraphs, nothing too controversial. Seems like I read something like this back in high school. I'll just go with what I've read.

So, America's "problem" individual rights, is the essence of its existence as a Nation. After all, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are literally all that guarantee our individual rights, and expressly exist to do so.

So, in short, LiusClues, your argument is that America is an obsolete nation? Or founded on an obsolete concept?

Because it's hard to read past that.

I'd love to argue with you. And I'll don't get personal. But I'm not going to read that shit. Arguing for individual liberty without understanding the substance we're debating is my right as an American. No party patrols are going to beat down my door and punish me for participating in a discussion in which I wasn't prepared. Such is the nature of living under a quasi-non-Authoritarian regime.

4/11/2008 2:00:29 AM

Your claim was that I say things like "stupid Americans." I want you to point out a single time I've said that.

Quote :

"It is the textbook definition of fascism."

I'm tired of things being inherently bad. There's nothing inherently bad with any system. To point out that what I advocate has similarities to fascism is uninteresting and tired. I want you to explain why I'm wrong, if I am.

Edit:

Glad to see Gamecat arrived. Finally I can have a well-reasoned discussion with somebody who's willing to take big ideas seriously. This is a discussion board, people. A discussion board for serious issues.

Quote :

"So, in short, LiusClues, your argument is that America is an obsolete nation? Or founded on an obsolete concept?"

My argument is that it's founded on a faulty concept. A concept that's damaging and dangerous to society.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:03 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:01:42 AM

ATTENTION:


duke could you suspend LiusClues? He doesnt like his individual right to self expression. He wrote a fucking paper on how he doesnt want the first amendment.

Two days of not being able to spew this bullshit on here and he might come to his senses.

4/11/2008 2:03:20 AM

So you're willing to violate your own ideals and principles just to "teach me a lesson"?

4/11/2008 2:04:27 AM

words

4/11/2008 2:05:22 AM

Of course not, I'm showing you the flaw of your own logic. In America, we like people to express themselves, even if they are stupid, illogical, communists like yourself.

You write a paper on not wanting the right to write papers.


I think you should be able to express yourself. But that doesnt stop me from praying to God to punish and kill communists.

4/11/2008 2:06:30 AM

Quote :

"Your claim was that I say things like "stupid Americans." I want you to point out a single time I've said that."

So your defense to the quite well-supported contention that it is your regular tactic to shout down anyone who disagrees with your rigid authoritarian thinking as stupid, wrong, or ignorant is to play semantics?

Really. Goad me some more. Because you'd love how this one will turn out.

Quote :

"I'm tired of things being inherently bad. There's nothing inherently bad with any system. To point out that what I advocate has similarities to fascism is uninteresting and tired. I want you to explain why I'm wrong, if I am."

What you advocate is identical to ideologies pushed earlier this century, and the inevitable result every time has been human misery and death. So, the real question is, "Why is your system any different?" Especially when it happens every time upon the radical concentration of power to the state with the overriding objective of subordinating individuals to the state.

How many times does a philosophy have to be proven to bring about nothing but misery before we can finally just debunk it?

4/11/2008 2:06:48 AM

You better look deep in your heart and ask Christ to forgive you for spewing this kind of godless nonsense.

4/11/2008 2:08:42 AM

Quote :

"What you advocate is identical to ideologies pushed earlier this century, and the inevitable result every time has been human misery and death. So, the real question is, "Why is your system any different?" Especially when it happens every time upon the radical concentration of power to the state with the overriding objective of subordinating individuals to the state. How many times does a philosophy have to be proven to bring about nothing but misery before we can finally just debunk it? "

especially considering that his "argument is that it's founded on a faulty concept. A concept that's damaging and dangerous to society" has been pretty much flushed down history's shitter, at least so far.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM. Reason : asdfsafd]

4/11/2008 2:12:52 AM

Quote :

"LiusClues: My argument is that it's founded on a faulty concept. A concept that's damaging and dangerous to society."

Aren't all nations?

Serious question.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:14 AM. Reason : (ignore the background noise if you want)]

4/11/2008 2:13:46 AM

haha, what, are you GameViper now? Or is it GoldenCat?

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM. Reason : i would argue that what's outlined in our Constitution is not. ]

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM. Reason : at least in and of itself. it leaves a few doors open...and of course, we now simply ignore it.]

4/11/2008 2:15:15 AM

You realize you are SERIOUSLY wanting people denied the right to practice their religion?


I'm not even going to ask the Lord to have mercy on your soul. This is blasphemy.

4/11/2008 2:16:09 AM

Quote :

" Aren't all nations? Serious question."

I believe so. We haven't seen the proper foundations put into place yet. People are too scared to take the plunge into the right. They stand on the edge of the cliff, staring out at a truly brave new world. Yet the deep, lingering tendencies and base drives of their evolutionary pasts call them back to ignorance.

4/11/2008 2:20:01 AM

I sent this in a private message to LiusClues

Quote :

"Forgive me my sins, O Lord; forgive me the sins of my youth and the sins of mine age, the sins of my soul and the sins of my body, my secret and my whispering sins, the sins I have done to please myself and the sins I have done to please others. Forgive those sins which I know, and the sins which I know not; forgive them, O Lord, forgive them all of Thy great goodness. Amen"

I hope that he, and anyone else lost like him can hopefully read those words and find that spark needed to ignite the righteous love of Christ in their hearts and in their minds. Humans are sinners but we can redeem ourselves by repenting for our trespasses against Him. Blasphemy is a very, very, grave crime against the Lord and you should ask for His forgiveness.

4/11/2008 2:23:03 AM

uhhhh





haha?

4/11/2008 2:26:21 AM

Quote :

"So your defense to the quite well-supported contention that it is your regular tactic to shout down anyone who disagrees with your rigid authoritarian thinking as stupid, wrong, or ignorant is to play semantics? Really. Goad me some more. Because you'd love how this one will turn out. "

How will it turn out? Hmm? Why don't you show me. You've got nothing.

4/11/2008 2:33:51 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: haha, what, are you GameViper now? Or is it GoldenCat?"

?

I'm still trying to understand the salisburyboy treatment over a philosophical essay. Sadly, LiusClues' overwhelming opposition hasn't represented itself logically or constructively. A better formatted post could've helped that, but given the vitriol I'm seeing, it doesn't seem likely.

I'm gathering that the issue here is that unlike salisburyboy, this guy puts the blame for everything on us. Not the Jews. Is it crazy to understand why someone from another country could see things that way?

Liberty is dangerous.

Hard to argue with that.

Now, LiusClues:

1) What's faulty about individual liberty? (Or if that's not the faulty concept, what is?)

2) Also, isn't society a group of individuals?

3) To what degree is individual liberty dangerous? I want to go drink a Coke, for example. Is that cool?

4) Isn't liberty a natural state? (If not. Explain.)

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:58 AM. Reason : WELCOME TO THE SINOPHOBIA BOX (smacks head)]

4/11/2008 2:44:21 AM

I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with this essay of yours. This has to be an exercise in the absurd, an attempt to write something from the perspective of a theoretical extreme as some mocking exercise. Seriously dude, what's the joke behind this? Even the most authoritarian regimes currently on this planet wouldn't subscribe to this... at least according to their official statements.

You've got a lot to prove to even make this essay somewhat credible. Slavery for example, was not the most productive use of resources, and even without the Civil War in the United States, the institution would probably have collapsed a few decades later under its own weight.

As for this:

Quote :

"Food and clothing prices have climbed, and real wages have declined as women and minorities have entered the environment of paid labor. With so many more potential workers to choose from, an employer does not need to pay as much to find an employee."

I have seen no economic data that indicates this is the case. You need to show some serious evidence to even make this statement remotely credible.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:55 AM. Reason : Since you want a real argument...]

4/11/2008 2:50:52 AM

He's trying to be a troll but the consequences of his choices are much more dire than he realizes.

4/11/2008 2:53:21 AM

Quote :

"How will it turn out? Hmm? Why don't you show me. You've got nothing."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=518894&page=2
/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=4
/message_topic.aspx?topic=520199
/message_topic.aspx?topic=518835
/message_topic.aspx?topic=520461

*yawn*

Just ignore the substantial critique part of my post while you're at it. Millions of dead folks can't be wrong!

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:55 AM. Reason : I'm not even trying, here.]

4/11/2008 2:54:36 AM

He's exercising his right to be stumped

4/11/2008 3:00:59 AM

I actually need to get some sleep. Tomorrow's a new struggle.

I'll take a look at this stuff when I get a chance tomorrow.

4/11/2008 3:01:35 AM

say this before you go to sleep

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep;
And if I die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.

4/11/2008 3:03:41 AM

there are so many things wrong with that ridiculously misguided essay i don't even want to start on it. i just hope it's a joke.

4/11/2008 3:03:59 AM

An elected authoritarian theocracy wouldn't be a hell of a lot worse than an unelected authoritarian communist bunch of atheists.

4/11/2008 3:06:04 AM

In the meantime, here's an actual serious question for consideration.

What part in what you advocate above differs from the historical record of this type of movement and ideology? Each "Third Way" movement poised itself as a radical "evolution" of human government, whereupon the needs of the community would subordinate the desires of the individual. Each of them claimed a need for absolute authority of the central government and a need to restrict traditional protections of individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

Furthermore, you openly call for the murder of dissenters, which as history shows in these cases, is an open recipe for genocide. Each and every single time an authoritarian government has come to power claiming that individuals are subordinate to the "communal good" and calls for the imprisonment and/or execution of dissenters, lots of people end up dead and millions more end up miserable. So what are you proposing here that differs from the historical record?

4/11/2008 3:06:47 AM

One nation
UNDER GOD
Indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for ALL

4/11/2008 3:34:00 AM