Skeptic wrote: "The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men." and you replied Please give me your source for this. Article VI seems fairly clear on the subject."

And once again, I ask for your source. I'll copy article VI for you here, and you can pick it out for me. "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

>>>Your Britannica definition [of socialism] implies government control

"...I believe (for reasons both rational and not) that any society has certain responsibilities to its members as a matter of enlightened self interest (if nothing else). Raising children to be responsible adults,..."

You believe that raising children is the responsibility of SOCIETY???

"...educating them, insuring the health of the members of the group (health care, food, shelter, education, individual rights)."

I must admit... I've under-estimated how socialist you are. You continue...

"Preserving dignity. Preserving itself, protecting its members, to hit some of the red flag issues.( Note: I believe). If enough others agree, then it becomes both culturally and legally a legitimate goal."

Assuming, of course, that our Constitution does not restrict it from happening.

"The problem starts when any of these groups [individuals, government, etc.] begin to accumulate too many resources (physical, social or political) and impairs these goals."

When government "provides", it is really the individual paying the bill. The resources are still drained from the individual, only with less efficiency.

"I think there's some evidence that the traditional market forces are no longer working as theorized."

I agree, but for completely ddifferent reasons.

"The problem seems to be that, as complexity has increased, the self-correcting feedback loops (free market forces) have stopped working."

The problem is that government is interfering. In trying to restrict "unhealthy" companies, the government passes taxes and regulations aimed at them. By doing so, the companies start playing the loopholes. The companies who are better at lobbying win.

""Ideal"? Enlightened Despotism? Anarchy? Pick your utopian model."

Capitalism.

"Reality is more fun."

Pretend is loads more fun then reality.

>>>>Another words, you want the public to do what you think is best for them? "Like, yes! Want (as in require)? No. Do you?"

Nope. In the first 30 years of my life, I spent a lot of time trying to tell people what to do. Then I realized that THEY were intelligent people also, and that free will is one of the best gifts I've been given.

>>>So am I. But I've never argued that the government enforce my personal values <<< "The government should support our right to have personal values. The community (with safeguards such as the Constitution) can moderate them."

You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values???

"The idea of rugged individualism is, IMO, utopian."

Sir / Mam; The idea of rugged individualism is AMERICAN. Remember how Americans came here and braved harsh winters and a strange freaky land? Remember how they traveled west across deserted plains? They craved individualism more then creature comforts. So do I. I weep every time I watch "Dances With Wolves", realizing that I'll never be able to live with that kind of freedom ever again.

>>>You're saying that YOU'RE value is to REQUIRE OTHERS to feed the hungry also.<<<

"It's very rude to shout."

I'm still new to HTML, and I can't remember the command for bold. I needed to add emphasis on those words. Caps was my only choice.

"I said that's what I believe. If I can convince enough people I have a good idea, we can elect representatives to carry out our wishes And yes, that means a balancing of beliefs.(Under the umbrella of the Constitution)"

Which is the catch. The Constitution has special emphasis on the freedom of the individual.

"I agree but as a cynic have to add that a lot of people don't have values, just ideas."

And that is perfectly within their RIGHTS (sorry, don't know the HTML) to not have values.

>>>I don't understand how you can say that "family" is a value.<<<

"Please! As in the family (nuclear or extended) as a good thing. (Versus communal nurseries, android nannies or whatever)."

Once again, while a family can be a good thing, I don't see how you can consider it a value. A value is something that I can improve in myself. I don't see how I can improve the "family" in myself.

"I promise to try to avoid cheap semantics if you will."

I consider cheap semantics arguing over the definition of "is".

You called "family" a value. I don't understand how an individual can have "family" as a value.

"Respect as in valuing the idea of the individual as a person. (Until proven otherwise). Believing they have the same inalienable rights as I do."

That's a belief, not a value. A value is something that you can improve upon. Under your definition of respect, you either have it or you don't.

"Letting people do what they want without moderating social/ethical/legal controls is utopian."

Yes, and it should be our goal.

""Do no harm" is laudable (not sarcasm). What is what you think and do cause me harm and to not cause me harm, you have change what you believe?"

Please reword that past sentence. It makes no sense to me as written. Maybe it's just missing a punctuation.

"All values are personal. I don't think you can outlaw, or require them."

Pardon me, but you can. Where do you think "Hate Crimes" come from?

>>>That's socialism. i.e.-'I believe in this, therefor, you must do it too'<<<

"Not exactly and that isn't what I said. "I believe in this and I'd like you to agree""

Pardon me, but when you REQUIRE someone to pay taxes for YOUR ideas of what is right, then you are making them do what you believe.

>>>In all of the US, the ONLY place where the problem of fraud seemed important this year was Florida. Hmmmm. Why?

"Important to who? The newspapers? LWE, RWE, LSC?."

Yes. Mainly the Democratic politicians.

"It should be investigated and dealt with wherever it occurred as detrimental to our society and way of government."

If that's so, then it should be dealth with everywhere it occurred. We had more irregularities in Chicago, and yet, no one is complaining. ('cept me)

>>>Now I can either assume that you are okay with Clinton spending $650,000 a year on his apartment, or you can join me in protest. Which is it?<<<

"I join you in protest at both. You only mentioned being against Clinton."

I argue what is happening now. It just so happens that Clinton was being a butthead *again*. (Better emphasis with the asterisks?)

"My current friend didn't own slaves or have indentured servants,"

Your current friends weren't born in 1750. Point: True or false- Jefferson tried to get rid of slavery in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was unheard of at the time?

"...don't believe that ownership of property should be the basis for voting,"

Again, the idea that non-property owners could be allowed to vote was a radical idea in the late 1700s. Yet, they proposed such ideas in the late 1700s.

"...don't think that Native Americans are sub-humans and that lying, cheating and stealing their land is just fine."

Which founding fathers do you believe did that? Jefferson? Lincoln?

"I can't say some of them wouldn't use their positions in government (such as they are) to preserve their own wealth. If they did, I'd have to reevaluate how I felt about them, I suppose."

What do you feel about the pledge that ends in "Our Sacred Honor"? "Sorry. Hope you have an ammonia capsule handy."

The best I have is menthol lozenges.

"I did say "If you haven't studied..." .and went on to add that otherwise we have a difference of opinion. I wasn't trying for snobbery but sarcasm. Touchy Touchy Touchy."

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. I can't stand when people claim to have ALL of the information. Though I admit to arguing that I know more then most people when it comes to Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.

"I cry constitutional snobbery right back at you."

Okay, then, I apoligize. I will make a note of it and try to back off.

"The argument rages over strict versus liberal interpretation."

I am aware. Which is why, whenever someone argues liberal interpretation, I wonder if they have ever read about the founding fathers and their intent.

Madison said (#35): "It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution, should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect."

All that says is that the document is not perfect. It does not argue for interpretation, liberal or otherwise.

In Federalist 85, Hamilton added, "Time must bring it to perfection."

I'd like to see that context. I'll have to visit the GPO on the web and look up the Federalist papers sometime soon.

"Use your definition."

In that case, I don't know anyone who works more then 40 hours a week who is poor.

John