He Is What the Tea Party Movement Is Made Of. . .

During the Age of Enlightenment, a group of philosophers . . .Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau . . . wrote about the nature of man. They inspired the leaders of the revolutions in Haiti, America and France as well as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens and the Polish Constitution. The Reformation was over and the religious map of the world was stable for a time and science could advance. The arts flourished as well and became democratized rather than centered in the courts and cathedrals.

One of the great principles to emerge from the Enlightenment is western democracy which is built upon the idea of each and every citizen surrendering some of his rights to the greater good.

While the aspect you assume here comes off as childish, what is sad is that you are not simply childish. You express a sort of dangerous, perverted, unConstitutional and anti-Enlightenment position. It is as though you are Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France.

In order for government to work, the citizens must surrender some rights to it . The opposite is true: the government also has to surrender rights to the citizenry, among them are the right of the citizens to protest government action (which the government often counters with police), the right of citizens to sue and the right of citizens to inform their representatives of their feelings and to vote said representatives out of office should those members of legislative bodies prove unsatisfactory.

You hold yourself as absolute. That, David, violates the Constitution.

Bravo!

David writes of having lived in a separate apartment within the family home from an early age. When I read that, I thought of a Jane Eyre. David wasn't the mad woman in the attic but he seems to have been the ignored child in his room. A dear friend, who is now deceased, suffered from childhood schizophrenia and from rheumatoid arthritis. When his mother had had enough of him, she would lock him in the closet. Into his 60s, he still dealt with her treatment of him. Her abuse continued into his adult years. She rejected her daughter-in-law and grandson as well.

It is no wonder that David has mistaken notions of freedom and a misunderstanding of government.

No, not quite; somewhat.
We moved to Arizona when I was 8 years and 1 day old.
My family purchased several businesses there, to whose
administration thay devoted long portions of most days,
6 days a week, returning home c.9 PM + or - . I ofen
hung around with friends of my age, my nabors.

We lived in a good, quiet naborhood, within which I never knew
of any crime and to which the police never arrived with sirens
during the 5 years that we lived there. Regardless of that,
there was a period of a few weeks duration, when I felt uneasy,
home alone, qua how I 'd defend the place, if that ever became
necessary, which, indeed never became necessary. I had nothing
better than a long kitchen knife for self-defense, nor home defense.
Hence, I will concede a brief period of the paranoia of which u r so
fond of alleging in your posts. Guns were freely abundant in our
environment, possessed by almost everyone. When I acquired a
small framed .38 revolver, I felt a sense of tranquility that if
anyone knocked down the front door or broke in thru a window,
I 'd have something with which to fight back. Paranoia ended.
I brought it with me everywhere and I worked out with it;
we enjoyed gunnery practice. Its fun, shooting at a variety of
targets. With the passage of time, I added to my gun collection,
including a .30 caliber M-1 Carbine with 30 round magazines,
for supplementary home defense, kept in a closet.


My next door nabor was a captain in the National Guard who
brought his son and some of us to a military installation
for gunnery practice (wide variety of weapons), which we all loved.

Anyway, Plain, I did not feel "ignored", particularly.
That never occurred to me and once I had some guns, I felt secure.

The "separate apartment" to which u referred was in one of our houses upon our return to NY
from Arizona, when I was 13. I enjoyed long periods of argument of political ideology
with my mother, who was a Roosevelt liberal in her views, as was my father.
I never approved of Roosevelt.
I believed in laissez faire free enterprize.
After years of debate, I convinced both of them to vote for Barry Goldwater for President.
(By co-incidence, Plain, I mentioned this personal history to a good friend of mine, my former
law partner, office manager, Elliot, who had a similar experience in that his parents owned
a bakery in NY, whose operation consumed their daily hours, such that he had personal freedom too,
alone in their apartment, after school every day. He told me that thay sold the bakery,
such as to bring his parents into closer contact with him, and he resented such interferences
in his personal life that resulted therefrom.)




Thank u for your concern, Plain.
My mother and I saw "eye-to-eye"; we had a superb rapport.
I deemed it far superior to the parental relations of other
families that I observed, with occasional efforts to intimidate the kids.
My mother joined me, in my apartment, on a daily basis because I deeply respected
my mother's ability to reason. She was my counsellor, of whose opinion, I cared a lot.
We had continual discussion, readings, and watched TV together for many years
in this apartment of the house, which I continue to occupy, having everything ideal,
exactly the way I want it. (Incidentally, Plain, "warm" is not 60 ˚F. Warm is 84˚F. in winter.)



The relationship between government and the citizen is one of adversity,
wherein domestic jurisdiction is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to personal freedom,
as the Founders of this Republic understood.

In common with myself, and with my ex-law partner, Elliot, the American Republic began
from a period of "Salutary Neglect" from the English. From self-reliance, we got used to
making our own choices and exercising our own freedom.
We got used to freedom, and learned its value, as did Elliot and I.





David

You wrote:

(Incidentally, Plain, "warm" is not 60 ˚F. Warm is 84˚F. in winter.)

See,what I mean? You are a selfish destroyer. I will refrain from using the word killer.

You are probably unhealthy because artificially produced heat over 68 degrees is bad for the sinuses.

What a warped man. It is reassuring that you never reproduced.

For someone who claims to be an attorney, you are totally ignorant of the nature of government.

POM suffers under the delusion that she wasn't being used.

I always endeavor to be selfish, and I advise everyone else to do so.
When I was around 4 or 5, my mother advised me not to be selfish.
I DISMISSED THAT out-of-hand, very fast indeed.
I have never had cause to re-consider that decision.

If I reproduced, I 'd have no certainty
that the next generation woud adopt my vu about ANYTHING.


MY father was a Roosevelt Democrat. I rejected THAT, ab initio.





David

Plain, its only that your perspective is evilly twisted and perverted.

So is cancer. Would you like to adopt that, too?

Aren't taxes loser now than with Reagan? Perhaps we could raise them back up to pay for some ****.

T
K
O

That disorder is inconsistent with the nature of the functioning
of that organism, occasioning disruption.
By the criteria of how the body is supposed to function: it is unnatural, like socialism.

I suspect that the persona you adopt to respond to people here is a total fabrication. While I amazed that you can maintain it, it is too outre to be believed and too tiresome to deal with.

As I said, your persona has to be a fantastic joke. You are too overboard to be real.