Baruch Spinoza Quote

"The ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain, by fear, nor to exact obedience, but contrariwise, to free every man from fear, that he may live in all possible security; in other words, to strengthen his natural right to exist and work without injury to himself or others. No, the object of government is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or puppets, but to enable them to develope their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled; neither showing hatred, anger, or deceit, nor watched with the eyes of jealousy and injustice. In fact, the true aim of government is liberty."

by:	Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) Dutch philosopher of Sephardi Portuguese origin
Source:	Baruch Spinoza, in Theological-Political Treatise (1670)
Rating:
Categories:	Control, Fear, Force, Government, Justice, Liberty, Security
	Tweet

And now we see how tyrannical our government has become.  -- Kimo, Lahiana      1
Sounds like the America we have achieved to me, achieved and striving for, both! I really don't know where folk come form with their tyrranny comments.  -- Waffler, Smith
The government we now have is no longer a government of the American people. It is an agency of tyranny and terror and works on behalf of the Globalist elite who would see us all enslaved in rags or dead. Take out the trash in November.  -- J Carlton, Calgary
So Waffler, you being an agent of the foreign god Caesar, helping to secure the stolen fruit of noble laborers through exacting obedience by way of fear, restraint and other reprisals, you call that liberty? hmm You believe in the punishment of individuals that have not infringed on any one or thing's right or, done any thing wrong except disobeying a tyrannical edict from a foreign despot and you call that freedom? again, hmm I'm not sure the true aim of government is liberty but rather, the lawful representation of the individual sovereign and his inalienable rights. That would be liberty. The word or concept formation is just a bit odd to me but, strong and broad enough to give it at least 5 stars.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Waffler obviously does not know history or the Constitution, for if he did, he would understand how much of our freedom has already been usurped by this government with the objective being to become a part of the "New World Order." The first time I heard that phrase many years go, my blood ran cold. If anyone is interested, Google the name Wickliffe B. Vennard who wrote in the last century on the Federal Reserve Act in a booklet titled, "The Federal Reserve Corporation:42 Years of Subversion in 100 Acts." Reading this booklet will make your hair stand on end. There is also another site, www.alibris.com where a number of his writings can be found at a reasonable cost. And Waffler, please do some research.  -- Carol, Georgia      2 1
Absolutely brilliant!!  -- E Archer, NYC      2
Friends of freedom, don't try to explain anything to Waffler, a total waste of time and energy. It's about like trying to teach a pig to whistle.  -- jim k, Austin      1 1
Liberty my ass. There is no freedom, only slavery to the ruling elite. Down with America.  -- Anonymous      3
So it was, but will it remain? I feel fear for my country right now.  -- Abigail      1
That my dear friends would be written differently today - praising what is not or may never be is really a waste of the pen. The thought is good but totally unrealistic in a world that neither lives by ethics or his reasoning of goodness.  -- RBESRQ
Words worthless words. Name a person that is victim to tyranny as Mike claims that they are. Did this tyranny just start a year and a half ago with the change of a President and his party. Who are the bums. I thought we threw the bums out a year and a half ago. Does anyone have any specifics for anything they say. Carol reads garbage and calls it research, Bush the first used the phrase New World Order and people went nuts. We have discussed this befoe Carol, their has been a New World Order since the time immemorial. Every time a child is born or an oldster dies there is a new world order. The world and its' societires are not static straight jacketed things made to fit your pre determined definitions or ideas of how they should be.  -- Waffler, Smith
(-; Waffler, the list starts here: Kimo, J Carlton, Mike, Carol, E Archer, jim k, Anonymous, Abigail, and RBESRQ ;-) oops, that starting list is less than a million, they need be reported. Hwuuee, the full list is over a million so I guess we don't need report the victims of tyranny.  -- MIke, Norwalk      1
Okay Mike now what tyranny have those you named suffered? And if I and all of the rest of us have suffered it equally is it tyranny. I mean tyranny is injustice of one or a group over another one or another group. If we all one group and have inflicted upon ourselves certain "injustices" equally can it be described as tyranny. Now as we know it Rwanda one tribe a minority exercised tyranny over another tribe, is that what you believe exists here. What tyranny do you suffer my friend, other than being required to stop at a stop sign which you so much abhor.  -- Waffler, Smith
Add me to the list of opressed by a tyrannical government.  -- Howard, Bangkok      2
The tyranny all suffer under here is by the arbitrary expressions oppressively enforced by alien usurpers. You try and build a false base to which any answer there in would be lacking. The de jure jurisprudence of the founders was to be based on the definitive understanding of the law of nature or Nature's God. The codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. of each jurisdictional venue were to be administrative tools harmonizing with law, in defining a common law grouping of individuals. Such tools were not to be perceived as the law itself. Man can not make law. Such tools that are enforced by way of compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity, violation of individual rights, and all else that is contrary to natural-law is tyranny. It doesn't matter if one or many are violated, it is still tyranny. The States united were to be representations of the individual sovereign(s). Once the representative acted upon its own inherent right, it was no longer a government of, by or for "We The People". Today's vote is to choose which alien master the slaves wish to suffer under, not which representative will serve his individual sovereign best. That is tyranny. When the statist theocracy that infests this land will claim that it does not have inherent right but duties only, and that all policing authority is responsible to 'We The People" (I have given you multiple Supreme Court decisions proving the point) and, the rest of my examples are addressed at positive natural law, that will be a good start to ending the tyranny all herein suffer..  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
Waffler, economic slavery is something we all suffer from. That list is at about 310 million. No! Wait! Deduct all the career welfare recipients that voted for the Kenyan...they are enjoying the recieving side of socialism, but not for long. The well is running dry.  -- J Carlton, Calgary      1 1
There is no tyranny, ask any of the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, etc  -- thief, Eugene      2
J Carlton, excellent point. That fiscal law of nature has been violated by statutes, bank actions, government policy, corporate functions and personal greed, all demonstrating a most heinous tyranny. The international bankers, along with their puppets (the statist theocracy that infests this land, mega corporations, traders, etc.), have created one of the greatest tyrannies the world has ever know. Waffler, do you remember when Mr Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin took office? Many of us said the economy was going in the toilet and you defended your savior. The continuing implementation of anti-fiscal law, including Keynesian economics, will continue to kill the economy, no matter who the assassin blames. That is a tyranny all are and will suffer under.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2 1
We are just beginning to experience real tyranny. It began with the health care bill that the people clearly did not want and which is clearly unconstitutional. It continues when the president steps on the US Constitution and does the things that are designed to be done by other branches of government...as we see with BP...he completely bypassed he judicial branch that should have had the last word in what the liablities were/are. We feel it when we can get no response from our representatives or the opposite response from what we wish on a very large scale, ie: amnesty/borders. We see our representatives favoring anyone and anything other than the citizens of this country that voted them into office. When you have a congress person, like say, Jan Schakowsky who voted to support the United States Constitution and your freedom 5% of the time in 2009, that is tyranny (from The Freedom Index 12-7-09), and not to pick on her specifically except as an example, for there are 77 Senators that voted in support of the US Constitution in 2009 less that 75% of the time and 314 House members that voted to support the US Constitution under 75% of the time. Clearly your individual liberty is not being looked out for. Clearly these people have an agenda and that agenda is to control the masses with rules that 'are for their own good' and whether the masses like it or not. When I have to purchase a product against my will...that will be tyranny...  -- Abigail      3
..."No, the object of government is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or puppets, but to enable them to develope their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled; neither showing hatred, anger, or deceit, nor watched with the eyes of jealousy and injustice. In fact, the true aim of government is liberty."....This is the nature of the beast who uses the virtues of liberty minus what the true aim of government should be which is to protect the 3 greatest gifts granted by God or nature's god to each and every single individual and that is to protect the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not much of that happening lately. Just a bunch of jealous cowards who want to steal and/or control what does not belong to them.  -- Anon      1
"to strengthen his natural right to exist and work without injury to himself or others" - That is protecting the right of life; and health care protects life. Many polls indicate people want universal health care, even those who chose the majority party. Removing big insurance companies and middlemen adminstration make it affordable. As for the poor who may need public assistance, they have a right to life. Or should we "let them eat cake"?  -- PTMAMA, Rochester      3
No one has a 'right' to insurance.  Insurance money is pooled together to help cover those that pay into it.  You have a right to the coverage if you contribute to it.  The purpose is not to have insurance pay for everything, but only for catastrophic health expenses that would normally bankrupt a person.  It is not a trust fund for every health related expenditure.  Should everyone have access to these 'securities'?  Yes, and they should pay in like every other participant in the insurance pool.  The business is based on demographics and statistics and that determines the level of 'risk.' If a person is too poor to even pay for his own security, free insurance for all to cover everything is hardly the solution (nor would it work).  It is not a right if someone else has to pay for it.  -- E Archer, NYC      3
-- Ronw13, Oregon

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: