William wrote:

First things first: I'm two years younger than you are. Not such a great gap, is it? I have no interest in besting you. I see things you don't see, that's all, and understand them differently than you apparently would. The difficulty for me is grasping why you have the aversion you have to government as a Platonic category, rather than to specific governments. It seems to me that a fundamental part of your agenda is missing from all your arguments here. Do you not see this? Will you not share what makes you argue as you do?

The quote above bespeaks a misunderstanding of what I wrote so fundamental as to almost make me conclude that it's intentional. Is this misunderstanding just a rhetorical flourish on your part, or do you actually believe it? If the latter, perhaps my initial conclusion about you was correct; there can be no commerce between us.

The quote was part of my invitation to clarify; to make an open-ended statement to see if you would tell me what you think of Jefferson. I can not seem to get anyone here to tell me what they are for only what they are against.(or whom as the case may be) I do think that first paragraph of yours (last post, not this one) was constructed to allow readers to see slightly different things depending upon their own worldview. Hence, I hoped you would expand on it.

You say you have difficulty understanding my aversion to government as a category. I hope you mean nation-state government verses the natural ordering of society left in liberty; as in Iceland for example.

http://www.hi.is/~bthru/iep.htm

Minarchism verses Anarchism is an old dispute. I was for a small limited government for decades until Rothbard finally convinced me of the central issue. The limited government will grow and expand over time. Even in a liberty loving land like America the government will expand in power, never yielding any back to the people, until we are enslaved to the ruling class. I believe that power corrupts; and I believe an honest look at history shows this.

William, would you be so kind as to publicly state why you are for a strong government? You self-identify as a "collectivist" unless you were ribbing me. Why? Do you think all the woes we suffer can be cured via the correct leadership?

Regards, b1

Just so you don't lose any more sleep waiting for this to happen, here is something for you to consider:

There are no solutions, only problems. Anything that looks like a solution is merely a reformulation of the problem. Since there are no solutions, everything is part of the problem.

Now that was funny. :-)

Congratulations.

--b1

I enjoy reading your posts and want you to continue to participate, but in this particular argument, your viewpoint has an unfortunate disadvantage in that it's just plain wrong.

Go ahead, and let it out; do you think I am wrong? :-)

This is a debate I had with my best friend (very liberal Catholic) over several years. He came to see my side over time, as he realized we are not all that far apart.

Walmart has used (no, I mean abused) the government to do things that they could not have done otherwise. We can agree that they should be punished for that, no?

Further, we believe that any monopoly contains its own seeds of destruction, but that topic is a long one, and I do not have the time just now.

I can say --- I hate that damn Walmart. I can also say that we must make them abide by the rules of the game. But, I do not see using government to punish them simply because I dislike them so much. (I mean, hey --- some guys here don't like me much) ;-)

-b1