Quotes About Government

even a pope who tried to free the Church from feudalism could not free his own mind or government from feudal methods.

Gallatin had warned Jefferson that " government prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it better than themselves.

In the ensuing debate Madison declared that "opinions are not the objects of legislation," and he worried aloud, "How far will this go? It may extend to the liberty of speech and of the press." Finally,

He had already decided to study law, not because he intended to be a lawyer, but because, he told Bradford, "the principles and modes of government are too important to be disregarded by an inquisitive mind

Not until the twenty-first century did the British government finally acknowledge officially that the Poles had indeed played a role in breaking Enigma. On July 12, 2001, a monument commemorating their contribution was installed on the grounds of Bletchley Park, Even so, it hardly did justice to the seminal nature of their work.

an internal government report proposed that "everything should be done to ensure that as few Poles as possible remain in this country.

The U.S. government offered no apologies. For the British to receive any aid at all, Roosevelt and his men believed, the American people must be persuaded that their own country was getting the better of the deal. "We seek to avoid all risks, all danger, but we make certain to get the profit," said the isolationist senator William Borah.

To her, Vichy was nothing but a nest of gossip, infighting, and intrigue, filled, as she put it, with the "aristocracy of defeat"—politicians, businessmen, civil servants, military officers, and others—all seeking jobs or other personal or political gain from the new government.

She thought only men of property and talent should hold positions in government and once elected they should be allowed to rule with a minimum of popular interference. ..They cast off their old habits of frugality and tried to rise above social position as well - a double sin.

The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.

A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime… whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber… or by millions, calling themselves a government.

Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.

Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.

A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.

If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.

That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.

A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.6

No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent is robbery," or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist.

So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.

A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.