Aristotle Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

"It makes no difference whether a good man has defrauded a bad man,
or a bad man defrauded a good man, or whether
a good or bad man has committed adultery:
the law can look only to the amount of damage done."

by:	Aristotle (384-322 BC) Greek philosopher
Source:	Nicomachean Ethics, 340 B.C
Rating:
Categories:	Constitution, Justice, Law, Morals, Religion, Virtue, Ethics
	Tweet

Reader comments about this quote:

True -- Christopher
-- David W. Moore, Southfield, MI
This is what I touched at on a previous posting. Adultery cannot be punished according to the law as a moral act; however, should the wife of an adulterer have a measurable amount of "damage" (also known legally as lost "equity"), then the law has full sway to judge in the matter. Morality is a matter of conscience, whereas "corporeal" (I'll use Mike from Norwalk's word) government can only rule in matters of "damage." This opens a can of worms for our current form of government, because of all the forms of victimless crimes the people accept and the government enforces. When I don't wear a seatbelt or helmet, whom am I harming? Can I be punished for NOT harming myself? Do I have the inherent and individual right to force another man to wear a helmet or buckle his seatbelt? No. So how do I magically obtain this right to delegate it to my representative for him to act in my place in making it a law? How does my delegate (Representative) obtain the ability of enforcing a law that cannot be given by the individual if not by usurpation? In a democracy, license and victimless crimes are legal, but in a Republic, such things cannot exist. I cannot personally make any man wear a seatbelt or helmet because there is no victim—thus, there is no course for government to intervene—this establishes the proper role of government. Excellent quote! -- Logan, Memphis, TN
The law is one thing, the jury of your peers is something else again and a jury can weigh issues like good men and bad men. Like that Preachers wife who was let go on murder charges because her husband was a "bad man". Logan I have heard it explained that a cycle rider without a helmet can cause an accident if hit by a flying stone or bug in his eye if he also refuses to wear goggles. Car accidents without seat belts (and now airbags) wreak much greater havoc upon our ER's, health care systems and insurance costs. Reversing the logic of the previous quote it is "I'll do what ever I damn well please and y'all will pay the consequences." As far as democracies and republics having different approaches to this issue you have inadvertently proved a point of long simmering contention on this site. Since in this country helmet laws, seat belts, are virtually universally required it proves that we are by your own logic a DEMOCRACY NOT A REPUBLIC. Or you wish us to turn back to being a REPUBLIC rather than a DEMOCRACY, do away with helmets and seat belts etcetera. Oh Happy Days! -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
The law always considers intent. And that determines the seriousness of the crime. I only give stars because he was not speaking to our law. -- warren, olathe
Logan good logic would follow that if we do away with helmet laws we should also be able to drive without windshields, doors etcetera on our automobiles. They are just protective devices anyway. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
The quote is dead on point. It doesn't matter if you're good or bad, rich or poor if you cause no harm, no crime has been committed. If you break the law by committing a harm, justice is then called upon. Waffler, you are correct, we should be able to drive without windshields, doors etc. and, we do live under the tyranny of a Democracy. As for me, I would return to a free and liberated Constitutional Republic. Warren is also correct, intent is an absolute faculty of the issue when interpreting or establishing a crime. I've heard it explained that anyone (under the right circumstance, such as riding without a helmet, seat belt fastened, overusing a credit card, etc.) might, may, can, would, could, etc. ad nauseam rob a bank or maybe commit a hate crime so, we should put everyone in jail, except you (the empirical you - the believer in victimless crimes - the only innocent party). That would best serve the politically correct Democracy. In a free society, the punishment fits the crime. When the seat belt causes harm to the individual where no harm or less harm would have occurred (happens more often than not - though seat belts save more lives than they kill) can the injured party file suit against the Democratic government or the majority of individuals that caused the more severe injury or death? Where is the equality at the law. -- Mike, Norwalk
Mike tell of a real existing REPUBLIC where there are no "common sense" laws that would offend your since of freedom. Please. Remember one of the early organizations in our wonderful rebellion were the Committes of Safety. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
The quote is spot on! Waffler, if you have paid any attention at all to the rebuttal of your constant diatribe supporting democracy, you will note that Mike, Logan, and I have all made it abundantly clear that our lawful government has been established as REPUBLICAN. We do, however, agree that today our government is being run like a de facto democracy with no regard to the Constitution. Got it? As far as statutes (not laws, mind you) being passed that make driving without seat belts 'illegal' (not unlawful), read the fine print on your driver's license and the title of your car. In order to get these 'permits,' you have voluntarily agreed via your signature to abide by these commercial regulations. In fact, these permits were originally introduced for commercial use of the public trust (i.e. public roads) for insurance purposes. If you look at the title of your car, you will see that you do not in fact own it, but are merely a beneficiary for its use -- you have in fact placed the vehicle in trust with the state (i.e. they now own it, and you have merely equitable interest in it), and you are authorized to use it as long as you follow THEIR rules -- you could demand the same of others you have authorized to use your private property. The insurance business (i.e. legalized gambling) has pushed for most of these rules, and the states have succombed to the pressures (and the funds they have been able to collect from the public). Only a few states still have helmet statutes -- many were overturned as unconstitutional. Yet again, here is another example of applying commercial statutes to living breathing humans -- the intent for decades has been to give 'rights' to corporations (i.e. dead bodies) and turn people into commercial entities subject to the commerce clause of the Constitution (i.e. the Uniform Comercial Code). Under Common Law, we do not need licenses to travel, permits to drive, etc.. You can thank FDR for eliminating the distinction between the common law and commercial statutes when he merged the two into a single criminal code regulated by admiralty/maritime law. Do your own due diligence, and you will see. -- E Archer, NYC
Waffler, your logical fallacy falls under a false analogy. You're basing your analogy on a false system; the system that Archer, Mike, and I are fighting against. To accept what you've said, we'd have to believe that law comes from the people by the will of the majority, and that the majority can protects its interests at the cost of the individual's free will. That is an antithetical philosophy to the foundation of our country. You can pick which philosophy you're adhering to, but such a philosophy as you propose was developed in Eastern civilizations and is the basis of socialism. Socialism, if you've done your due diligence, is based solely on democracy: the will of the majority's law over the rest. Whereas Western thought establishes the individual as the basis of society, Eastern thought (which evolved into democratic socialism) establishes the majority as the basis of society. What you're saying only makes sense in a socialist paradigm. Of course the individual is not allowed to say "I'll do whatever I damn well please and ya'll will pay the consequences," but we must always support the foundation and tradition of our courts by allowing a man to be innocent until proven guilty. Pre-emptive laws, historically, have done little but make honest people honest and are based on the presupposition that people are guilty first before being proved innocent. Economics 101 states that seatbelt laws actually increase the number of accidents, because of people's perceived heightened security sensations they drive faster and more reckless than they normally would. Ask any economist and they will tell you the best possible way of providing for pre-emptive safety on the roads is to stick a knife on the steering wheel facing the driver -- this will surely be a deterrent to aggressive driving. The problem with seatbelt and helmet laws is that they are based on the idea that people will fail and that they are guilty of an accident before it happens -- this argument has actually held up in court. If our courts were set up correctly, then we would punish people who were negligent in their driving AFTER they have committed a crime. If the courts were actually set up to associate the correct punishment to the crime, we might actually be able to maintain our Republic amidst the slippery slope into Democracy. -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Waffler, you didn't answer my question, but then again, your answer would prove my point and the quote's accuracy. Your question is an oxymoron that can not be answered. To my knowledge, no common sense laws bother me and, the U.S. was unique in its establishing a government of law based on the individual being sovereign; i.e. a common sense Republic. That is why I would like to return to the substance, common sense, and reality of the quote and a Constitutional Republic. -- Mike, Norwalk
Archer wants to shut me up, then you guys would not be able to continue your gibberish. A minister friend of mine once said to me "Seat belts are part of Christian living" of course not all of us have to be Christians or take care of our lives. I agree it should be a freedom to be reckless as long as you do not endanger others. Of course we all make sure that those we care about take care (our kids have training wheels, wear bicycle helmets etcetera at our insistence) but once we become sopuisticated and 18 we can do any stupid thing that we want to do. Then along comes the nanny state just after we feel that we have escaped the common sense of our parents and we are treated as children all over again. If the folks who recklessly endanger themselves and others will stay out of our medical facilities I am with you guys 100%. Mike I agree that in a democracy all individuals should be able to sue anybody at anytime for anyreason. Once we lose our right to sue we have in effect become less than human and have lost virtually all of our freedom. I believe but may be wrong that some in the Republic camp versus Democracy camp are more than willing to take away or limit an individuals right to sue and thus his basic freedom. Archer car titles were primarily introduced to protect movable property from theft. It is diffcult for someone to steal real property but movable property is a different matter. Obviously the state gov. found yearly renewals to be a nice way to stoke their coffers. Most communities would look askance at 10 yeat olds handling weapons unsupervised or driving an automobile unsupervised. Archer your far out ideas appear to sanction a community from protecting itself from such nonsense and to allow automobiles, boats, tractors etcetera easy theft with very little way of recovery or proof of ownership. Talk about a clogged up court system. These controls on our live fellas is only going to get worse. The only answer is a lower and decreasing population. I will research helmet laws nationally and internationally. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
My research: 20 states helmets for all ages; 19 states for all under 18; 6 all under 21; 3 of the under 21 states require helmets in order to have insurance; 4 states no helmet required. Check out this study described in clutchandchrome.com 1/25/2008 concerning worldwide study of motorcycle helmet laws. I will support you guys position if you will support a return to gladiatorial combat to the death, the loser will of course have no need of throwing himself upon our health system and this will signal the ultimate end of the nanny state looking out for folks. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Waffler, I think you're still failing to see the whole picture with the Republic vs Democracy thing. The "right" to sue, in a Republic, is based on the notion of being "made whole" or "complete." Civilly, it's hard to put a fiscal amount to an emotional totality, but we try. I don't possibly see how you can perceive how those who advocate Republics can ever reduce an individual's freedom, while you claim that democracies increase his freedom in application... I'm quite dumbfounded, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You used the term "real property" -- I don't know if you know legally what you're talking about, unless you promote and agree with government owning everything. The term "real" came from feudal England where the King owned "real" title to all land in the entire kingdom -- the King apportioned blocks and segments of land to his subjects in what was legally known as "real estate." In other words, "real" is synonymous with "government owned." "Real property" is literally "government property;" "Real estate" is literally "government estate." Why don't you try and look that up sometime in an early version of Black's Law Dictionary and see what ya get. Archer is absolutely correct, as you just proved, as the government owns all "real" title to our vehicles, as per what's written on the title of every vehicle. You're just the beneficiary holding licensed title to drive the government's vehicle. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at concerning your minister friend, but the quote is absolute gibberish. -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Republic has nothing to do with freedom. Cuba and North Korea are republics. In a republic, as it seems here folks desire it to be, it is not about freedom of assembly, discussion, consensus and voting on issues of the day, but about a predetermined set in concrete code. To me that is not politcal freedom at all. Nor was Plato's Republic about democracy it was about the rule of beneficent philosophers aka communist republic-how is that for freedom that a republic brings. Real property Logan is what is underneath those signs you see on peoples lawns, forget about all that King and government talk. I don't know what you are talking about the government owning my cars. I have never had any government try to take its cars away from me, come check them out or anything else. If you read these messages you should know by now Logan that their is more than one of us who believe and know that the United States of America is a republic (soverign entity) which is a democracy (governed by the popular will of the inhabitants) -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Logan my preacher friends opinion is just that his opinion. I think what he meant was that in his view of Christianity we are to be careful to take care of life, with the use of child safety seats, seat belts etcetera. How that has anything to do with this debate, I dunno so maybe I should apologize for using it. Many families, businesses, corporations, military services, governments at all levels stress the idea "Safety First". I assume that such an in your face policy of safety propaganda is offensive to many, but I beleve it must work or "they" would not keep doing it. In your sense of freedom I would not think such things are welcome, neither would be, you know Public Health initiatives, such as malaria, STD, flu warnings etcetera. Nanny state practices all! -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Waffler, you never cease from making me smile.. You have no clue what personal responsibility or sovereignty means or, how public health, safe streets, life, liberty, freedom, or property ownership relate thereto. The language of liberty and freedom is lost to your examples and new re-definitions of the term Republic. You have semi-accurately used the term as it is now used in tyrannical states, not how the founders used such terms. It is the duty (a Republic has no inherent right) of the sovereign's representatives to protect the life, liberty, property, peace, authority, rights, etc. of the individual sovereign. Such personal responsibility will create for everyone a standard for clean water, waste disposal, building standards, etc. If an individual or other entity (commercial, private, etc.) injures someone with a substandard issue, they become personally liable. Government needs not send someone by to look at its property, just stop paying your taxes or fees and see what happens. There is no legal nexus to transfer property held in Allodium Freehold (you'll have to look it up in an older law dictionary, its been removed from most dictionaries because the state no longer allows absolute property ownership) to a third party, even if no tax was paid on that property. The IRS or a government entity can seize Real Estate at its whim because it owns equitable title. I believe all states (maybe just a majority, I haven't checked all states) have hidden in the background, in very small print, the term "Security Paper, Bank Note with a regional designation" on all new birth certificates. All individuals have been bonded as property of the State for investment purposes. Don't believe me or think I'm paranoid. Order your brand new Birth Certificate, scan it with a high quality scanner, and then blow it up so you can see the fine detail. The democracy claims ownership of you and your children. As chattel to the mobocracy, you can only hold title to the State's property, not own it. -- Mike, Norwalk
You live in a different world than I or anyone with whom I am acquainted live in. I am extemely sorry for you Mike, I suggest you might team up with Tom Cruise and you to might hit on a few cylinders together. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Waffler, your bringing up of North Korea and Cuba (oh, and you forgot the People's Republic of China) as Republics is a common fallacy as brought up by Political Science 101 students. You have to remember, there are several definitions attached to the word "republic," just as there are several definitions associated with the term "democracy." Politically, it depends upon your level of analysis--are you speaking of republics on an individual, state, or international level? Are you speaking of the definitions as proposed 100 years ago, or the definitions that have been assigned to "republic" today? Every definition you have ever produced in mentioning a republic has been in reference to the most recent international text books or online dictionaries. Current students of International Relations would completely agree with your definition, while students of Political Science (domestic, mind you), would find certain fallacies in your given definitions; although, they would generally accept the foundation of your arguments, because the terms and definitions have become so convoluted that current students seldom know the difference; HOWEVER, the student of classic philosophy, political science, history, and the founders of the United States of America would severely disagree with the limits you propose in your definition of republics and democracies. Today's international definition of "Republic" merely means a "non-monarchy," which clearly defines the limits of China, North Korea, and Cuba, because they are, in fact, "non-monarchy" states. However, these mentioned states are not "republics" as defined by any definition pre-dating 1900. In fact, should you choose to attend any University today, you will find that the definitions of republics and democracies vary widely between the International Relations and the Political Science departments. Why the confusion? Because there sits a subcategory amidst these two schools of thought: the philosophy department. Sadly, even in the best Universities today, only teach the mechanics of government while leaving the ideas and foundations of history to rot. The substance of understanding history is severely lacking, wherein the students are not being taught in the traditions of their fathers, but merely in the applications of their peers. This is the base reason why there has been a transition from the foundations of America's Republic into our new American Democratic Empire. -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Your comments to Mike concerning Tom Cruise are typical of someone who cannot win a debate, and is thus forced to use an ad hominem argument. If you can't beat the messenger, associate him with the perosn you think is the most wacko and send him off to his fate, eh? -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Logan republic and democracy are not opposites. Republic means nation, country, etcetera. Democracy referes to style of political process. What is the style of the political process in "your" republic may I ask. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Waffler, you are correct, we live in different worlds. I refuse to live as a slave in ignorance. Thank you for the sympathy, I will wear it as a badge of honor as I chose not your life style, but a life of a free sovereign in a Constitutional Republic. Do you know Tom Cruise? What are the specifics of his beliefs? Is he striving for freedom and liberty also? The here quote, distinguishes between privileged and non-privileged, rich and poor, good and bad, etc. as all are subject to the law. It does not matter if an individual wants to subject themselves to slavery, ignorance or anything besides the law and call it good, that is their prerogative. I choose liberty and freedom under a Constitutional Republic. -- Mike, Norwalk
As explained multiple different ways, a democratic process does not mean a democracy. Democratic process can be used in a Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, a Communist State, etc. A Democracy is a noun = Mob rule, the majority makes law, etc. Logan has explained Republic so well that anyone that was not proud of their ignorance and wanted to remain a slave to the mob would have understood. -- Mike, Norwalk
Mike & Logan: Thank you for such impressive rebuttals. As a Christian-democratic-socialist, Waffler demonstrates the effect of life-long indoctrination by church and state -- he is quite incapable of understanding the truth without letting go of most everything he has ever believed -- he has too much invested in the delusion. The Jesuits used to say, 'give me the first seven years of a boy's life, and we will have him for life.' But there are always some 'misfits' for whom the programming just won't take. ;-) Instead of harping over whether a country is 'a' republic, how about focusing on the fact that the FORM of the US government is supposed to be REPUBLICAN as per the Constitution -- the form of government of Cuba, China, and North Korea are communist dictatorships (no argument there, I hope). The fact that the US government operates as an oligarchy calling itself a democracy is agreed. Without direct elections like Canada or other Parliamentary governments, the US is hardly a democracy either (all presidential elections in the US are indirect and are opinion polls) -- Iraq is more a democracy than the US. I suggest using the word 'Liberty' or 'Freedom' instead of 'democracy' -- let's make the world safe for Liberty! Why Waffler uses terms like 'real property' instead of 'private property' suggests his programming is deep. The word 'real' comes from the Spanish 'royal' -- I believe Mike was trying to make the point. 'Titles' are exactly that, titles, not deeds or patents. Property held in allodium is indeed private property and can NEVER be taxed by anyone but the owner. The fact that we are paying property taxes is another example of the perversion of the word 'ownership' -- if you own it, then who has the right to tax it? The government of the People, by the People, and for the People has no more power than the People -- and a person has no right to tax another person's private property. So how do they get away with it? Because just like in a Constitutional Monarchy, all property belongs to the Crown, and we are simply granted title to it -- it is a privilige granted by the owner, by the sovereign. At least in England the people know they are subjects and the land belongs to the Queen -- Parliament is merely a body of ministers of the Crown -- the Crown does not have to accept anything Parliament comes up with. The primary vehicle for the confiscation of all private property into the hands of the ruling class has been the use of commercial promissory notes (i.e. IOUs, fiat currency, legal tender, Federal Reserve Notes, etc.) instead of money (i.e. silver and gold -- and other commodities with intrinsic value). By using this Monopoly money, we never actually 'buy' anything nor do we ever 'pay' any debts -- we merely transfer the equitable interest of someone else's property to another beneficiary. You don't own your house, the bank does. You don't have any money, you have bank notes (every Federal Reserve Note is a bill for one dollar [i.e. one ounce of silver]). You don't own your property, you are merely caretakers of it. And all the regulations and statutes that are followed today are merely colorable law, commercial statutes for regulating the use of promissory notes instead of money. Waffler, everything Mike and Logan have said is absolutely bang on, and I am honored that I am not alone on a ship of fools. I leave you this from the Rothschild family: "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." -- John Sherman, June 25, 1863, in a letter sent to New York bankers, Morton, and Gould, in support of the then proposed National Banking Act -- E Archer, NYC
What is the politcal process in a "republic" may I ask? I rather live in a political process in which the majority opinion holds sway than in one in which the minority opinon holds sway. Which system may I ask is more dictatorial to the most people? Don't answer, obviously, the rule by the minority is the most dictatorial to the most people. Long live MOB rule! -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
So what is so wrong with not owning anything. You are philosophically bang on. The only absolute truth (almost absolute) is that in 100 years all or most current inhabitants of planet earth will be dead. We never own anything we are just using it for a time. Socrates was right, "Being rich is not owning things it is being able to use things." And Emerson (yeah Walph Waldo) said it poetically, "Look out across the valley and you will see the Jones farm, the Smith farm etcetera but no one owns the landscape the view it is there for all of us to behold." -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
The process of the republican form of government for the US is defined in the Constitution -- period. The word democracy is not mentioned once. Waffer, you are a house slave protecting your little corner while the field slaves are whipped and chained because they won't bend to the will of the slave owner. You praise mob rule because you believe yourself to be in the mob -- might makes right, eh?. I cannot think of a more twisted corruption of Liberty. Ignorance is indeed bliss. -- E Archer, NYC
Ownership is control. If you do not control your own home, your own life, your own labors, you are therefore being controlled -- you are owned. Semantics will not win your Freedom -- you merely act in accordance with your master, slave. -- E Archer, NYC
I am not in the mob on this site. It is the gang of three, or the mob of Mike, Logan, and Archer. All our politicos use the word democracy to describe the politcal process of the USA and what we would like the process to be in other countries. Our pledge says this.."I pledge.....to the flag....and to the republic.....one nation....with liberty" These words use the word "republic" and "nation" interchangeable signifying soverign entity. The political process is designated in the word liberty. Republic has nothing to do with liberty in the modern world. It did in the 1780's when republican mobs took over America and Paris. A republican government was a democracy. The emergence of party names in America has distorted the meaning of the words to a great extent. I believe it is fair to say that those adhering to the Repulican Party see themselves as more conservative than those adhering to the Democratic Party. The words however historically have meant the same thing - government by the people. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Thank you Archer. In a de jure free Constitutional Republic, law is held paramount (a government of law). Neither the majority opinion, nor the minority opinion hold sway when it concerns said law. In a Democracy, the majorty don't just have sway, the aloof third party government creates law. (a government of men) -- Mike, Norwalk
Waffler, your relying on the pledge is laughable. Nation and Republic are not synonymous! "Republic" refers to the type of government; "State" referees to the geographic territory under one sovereign political government; "Nation" refers to a common people, culture, or society that shares common characteristics, such as language, religion, belief, ethics, etc.. We are "one nation under God," because the common belief was that God was the common theme that made us a nation, not a conglomerate of the several states. Some states are called Nation-States, because they share one overwhelming large culture, language, and society: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. These European states, even though they are under federal system of the EU, still maintain their separate national characteristics from each other---mostly because of language and cultural tradition--and are considered Nation-States. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. These are basic, basic, basic definitions learned the first week of Political Science 101 classes. You may have read, but you haven't comprehended a thing we've talked about, you're still using the "politico" definition of terms. We've told you that terms have been redefined over the last 200 years, and then you use modern definitions to try to disprove us? Do you know the history of WHY these terms have been redefined? As I've stated, ad nauseam, you have to define your terms--and everything you've ever stated, even in your last post, goes on the international definitions. To be completely accurate, over the last 50 years, the Political Science departments and Universities across the United States have adopted the International Relation's (International definition) of republics and democracies--but you wouldn't know that unless you accepted this to be the case and actually did you due diligence in studying the dictionary definitions of republics and democracies from over 100 years ago. Have you read Machiavelli? Aristotle? Plato? John Adams? James Madison? George Washington? If republics and democracies are really synonymous, like you say, then why do they differentiate between the two and condemn democracies? Why? It makes no sense! Why did Benjamin Franklin expressly say that they fought to keep America from being a democracy? Why did Benjamin Franklin say, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, and freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote"? There is an OBVIOUS dichotomy of democracy and freedom. This is absolutely ridiculous! Of course, today, the definitions of the two are largely the same, because people like yourself are willfully and stubbornly ignorant to history. There's one thing to simply be unread, but there's another to willfully rebel against history! Why do you fight against what is plainly obvious? Waffler, I'll say it again, you are right in your current definition... Everything you say is spot on with what you'll read in a current dictionary--or even perhaps wikipedia--but you are being stubbornly ignorant to anything we've said that proves that the definitions you adhere to have only existed for the last 50-100 years--this redefinition is a result of globalization (not using this a bad term), wherein the United States has given up some of its culture, history, and definitions to be in line with the international community. If we want to argue the rightness or wrongness of such globalization, that's an entirely different argument, but for now -- just accept the facts pertaining to the definitions for what they are. I've found our conversations thusfar to be fun, to be sure, but as I said, this is becoming a little bit ridiculous. -- Logan, Memphis, TN
As my last post on this thread, may I suggest, Waffler, to google "difference between republic and democracy," and see what pulls up? There are quite a few good mainstream articles that can give you a good foundation that obvious Archer, Mike, and me haven't been able to do. I'll even go so far as to suggest this article from World Net Daily: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42248 -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Mike how does the paramount law, the law that is above the minority and above the majority, ever get on the books. What force or power puts it there. A minority power, a majority power, or does it fall from heaven.Logan, Mike has already disagreed with you and admitted that the Unted States today even if unfortunately is a democracy. Logan I have read all of that stuff, I don't claim to be an authority. What you are saying is that you are single handidly trying to create a paradigm shift even if you have to be historically dishonest to do it.What is it so much that you dislike about democracy? Why were the Iraqis so happy to go the polls for the first time in their lives and fashion a government by electing people whom they liked and trusted to get it done? They were giddy with the power of the individual to come together with others to form a majority viewpoint to get it done. For the first time they felt in control of their lives. Then the radicals, the Islamic REPUBLIC types tried to take away this majority rule with murder and mayhem and ram a "god" given (or what they in their ignorance think is god given) government of dictatorial law down the happy democracies throat. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Logan with your highly read background and your insistence on due dilegence you should know that the word "God" was not in the original pledge but added by do gooder religionists during the Eisenhower years. And it should not be there and should be removed. You expounded on Nietzche the other day. You should know that contrary to his writings he was, kind, gentle, courteous etcetera. Like all of us he carried psychological baggage. He disliked the religion of his aunts. He basically thought it wrong to live in anticipation of the future life and not go for all the gusto you can in this life. He is considered to be an Existentialist. -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
I think you all should read some Aristotle. A Republic is fundamentally different from a Democracy. Democracies can violate individual rights by the will of the majority. The idea of a Republic is that the power of the rich is balanced against the rights of the poor. The rich cannot violate the rights of the poor and the poor cannot violate the property of the rich. This is why a middle class is so essential to a Republic and why the US is losing its status as a Republic. The middle class is waning and thus the conflict is raging between rich and poor. Unfortunately, the seventeenth amendment gives the lower class an upper hand in this and the result has been a welfare state which resembles more of a democracy. Had Aristotle known our lingo today, he would have characterized a democracy as a classic socialist state. -- Ben, Springfield, MO
Waffler, I disagree against your assertion that God "should not be there and should be removed"; however, the historical context of your statement is spot on. Nietzsche was an interesting individual, and you're correct about his existentialism. In fact, it was his existential foundations that led him to hating democracy. Regardless of when or where "God" appeared in the pledge, the phrase itself directs that the common denominator that makes us a "nation" and not just a conglomerate of states is our fundamental belief in God. You can disagree with this, as I assume you do, but that's why it was placed there. I agree with the self accountability as purported by existential philosophy, although I disagree with the assertions that such accountability can ONLY be found in the absence of God. I'm sure you would disagree with me if I said that self accountability can only be truly found in the presence of God. But then we would be having the same argument of an old Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine. Oh, and thank you Ben for your comment, I agree. -- Logan, Memphis, TN
I think that too much space was devoted to Waffler. The truth of the quote should be obvious to someone as confused as Waffler. -- jim k, Austin, Tx
Logan, Mike and Archer, One of the best arguments for the Republic I have had the privilege to read. -- watchman 13, USA
Jim, Waffler can always be counted on to present the argument of the ignorant status quo (the majority of the people, I am afraid), thus creating the opportunity for a common sense argument to be made. Without his commitment to willful ignorance, most of these well made arguments for liberty, law, and the Constitution would remain unspoken. Thanks, Waffler, keep up the good work! -- E Archer, NYC
BTW, the original Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, and the form of the salute was the same as used to 'Heil Hitler.' The salute was changed to the right hand over the heart in 1942. 'Under God' was added in 1953. ;-) -- E Archer, NYC

Bio of Aristotle
More Aristotle Quotes
Books by or about Aristotle
Aristotle Videos
Wikipedia
This Aristotle quote is found in these quote Categories:
Constitution Quotes
Justice Quotes
Law Quotes
Morals Quotes
Religion Quotes
Virtue Quotes
Ethics Quotes

Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend