[Pontiac]

The fundamental question which should be posed to ideologues is whether the “state” exists for the benefit of individuals, or do individuals exist for the benefit of the “state”.

I understand your argument however it would not be convincing for a socialist.

A socialist would argue that the state does exist for the individual. That the state exist to ensure that every individual has all of his needs secured to that individual.

Hitler and Stalin both believed in the supremacy of the state and that the individual must serve the needs of the state.

However the Progressives of today have hidden their true motives in propagandistic fluff of phrases of “rights to health care” and “rights to healthy food”.

The Progressives turn everything upside down by telling their adherents that the state serves the individual by forcing the individual surrender their rights to the state and to serve the state.

[donna]

This is interesting. The link described doesn't work anymore but is still interesting.

Putting the Cards on the Table
11/12/02
Balint Vazsonyi

A few days ago the New York Times reported in the lead position, above the fold, that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had the votes to become the next Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. Much is discussed about the Congresswoman, but without a single mention of her executive position in the Progressive Caucus, and the latter’s ties to the Socialist International. (snip)

http://www.balintvazsonyi.org/shns/shns111202.html