Arcane Gazebo

What is a "perfect world" scenario for you, Travis?

Hm. In a perfect world, people don't feel the need to impose their will upon others, and so institutions aren't even needed to defend freedom. And I'd like a pony.

In reality, freedom is such a rare and precious quantity because of the fundamental darkness of the human soul. It's the natural tendency of people to want to control, to silence speech they don't like, to make their religious beliefs into law. I think we can overcome the natural evil of humanity, but it won't be easy, and no god's going to do it for us.

"In a perfect world, people don't feel the need to impose their will upon others . . . It's the natural tendency of people to want to control, to silence speech they don't like . . ."

Hm. Now, I'm not disgreeing with you as far as people imposing their religious beliefs on others, but based on what you said above, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

You'll have to elaborate, because I don't quite get your meaning. However, consistent with my assertion that humans naturally tend to infringe on the freedoms of others, it would not surprise me if I (being human) unknowingly succumbed to such a temptation myself. It's not apparent to me where I did so (or advocated doing so), however.

Well it just seems to me that all of this is just the same sort of thing that you're accusing others of doing. You want to silence people like Bush but you still want to be able to say what you deem appropriate.

If I'm misunderstanding, then I apologize, but I've found that a lot of really liberal people can be just as close-minded as the uber-conservative people that they are fighting against. "If you don't believe what I believe then you are wrong."

P.S. I am not in any way standing up for any statements that George W. Bush makes.

There's a vast difference between saying "Bush is making an obviously false statement" and saying "Bush should be forcibly prevented from making obviously false statements." I absolutely believe that Bush should be allowed to make obviously false statements, even if I would prefer that he didn't, and even if I think it's poor leadership or bad policy for him to do so. Expressing my belief that he is speaking falsely is in no way equivalent to advocating that he be silenced, and I cannot see that I did the latter in my post.

To quote Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."