"Corporate actors who do use violence agasint people (other than by, say, rightfully "escorting" them from premises for trepass and the like), should be prosecuted.

In the absence of a third party capable of forcing said Corporate actor (who would almost inevitably be the stronger and more resourceful party when in conflict with a person or people), how would said Corporate actor be meaningfully prosecuted? By whom who they be prosecuted, how would the prosecution proceed - what would bind the Corporate actor?

Eventually, you come to a strongest, most resourceful party able to force or coerce all others to obey the rules it feels are most meaningful or necessary - and that's your de facto government, or mob. For that region.

I suppose if the regions are small enough, you could argue there's "no government" in the land, but the city-states of the land would probably not consider themselves ungoverned.

Essences, in my opinion, are not essential. Complexities are, this being the vale of tears and all. In any event, may I please have some of whatever that is in your glass this evening? It seems the most pure and evanescent sort of inspiration..... :-)

(from ondolette:) And some things are defined only for how they appear or what they resemble, or how they feel. When people were giving definitions a while back, they made lists of liberals, wrote or quoted poetry.

I don't know what liberal means in politics except in terms of those things some liberals support, or in opposition to conservative. Conservative literally means resistant to change, but that doesn't seem to convey a whole political philosophy for a complex society.

I've come to think that we align the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' around the fundamental problem in the present that separates us. 'Conservative' takes the attitude of the past about the core issue(s) and its myriad of manifestations, 'liberal' takes the attitude of the future. All the Third Party takes are, in my view, basically choices to focus on narrow portions of the problem and ignore the others. Few or no great problems are complete novel, so there are always historical precedents that can be invoked by all sides.

Since WW2 the American argument is about changing the laws creating and enforcing the social aspect of serfdom. The jurisprudence of importance is invariably about denying, or admitting and enforcing, the guarantees of due process and equal protection and application of all Bill of Rights rights to all people under jurisdiction of American government in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Whether it's the right to abortion, integration of schools, affirmative duty to admit black students or hire black employees where there is an unremedied history of discrimination, gay marriage, ex-felon rights restoration (i.e. the vote), fair treatment of "illegal aliens", giving foreign (or domestic) citizens accused of terrorism a process that legitimately convicts or acquits them, and internal practices of hiring and firing in the Department of Justice...there is everywhere at bottom a dispute about application of the rights that 14/1 articulates. To be "liberal" is to be on the side of integrity of interpretation and enforcement of it. To be "conservative" is to claim that the time has not yet come when that is appropriate or to deny entirely its applicability to the problem at hand (using the Bible as justification, or 'natural law', or 'originalism'/'strict constructionism' or the like).

Following this period will be a time in which ending the laws and conditions that maintain many Americans in economic serfdom- poverty, inadequate education, poor mental and physical health, and bad jobs, corporate irresponsibility- is the central dispute. Many people want that time to be now.

Back to Glenn's original post: if you as a self-identified conservative concede that "liberals" are right on substance on anything of importance in social rights and responsibilities, that means you have broken through the denial. "Conservatives" know that once the denial breaks on one subject, it will break on others- slippery slope, domino effect, or whatever they call it. This phenomenon that he notes of conservatives cracking in their denial and 'determination' then being excoriated and punished as full "liberals"...it's a concession that the "conservative" side is really defined by denial and ability to restore denial, in my view.

Yes - I want in on any round of serious metaphor metaphoring. Y'all might enjoy the trading cards at the document linked in the first bullet point at this page:

http://certifiedprepwn3d.googlepages.com/developawareness

That collection of pages is not ready for prime time, by any means - still contemplating what would be the appropriate form...

b1: "I wrote that I supported Ron Paul. Yes, I know --- no chance in hell of winning, but I will vote for him."

NY: "So you're still a registered Republican. How very libertarian of you."

I wrote earier that I still vote even though many libertarians do not on principle. We may vote in one primary or the other --- no crossover like in another state I lived in a few years back.

Bother you?

----------------

b1: "I have read no one else here tell me of a better candidate --- I think they all are waiting for Glenn to make a endorsement. (if true, how sad is that?)"

It's sadder still that you have effectively hijacked every conversation since you arrived, but if you dip back into the pre-Bucky era, you will find discussion and debate about various current and potential presidential candidates, although since much of it was about Democrats you may not in fact recognize their fitness for office (or even their very existence.) You will also find a higher percentage of comments relevant to Glenn's post than has been the case since your advent. Perhaps you should start your own blog instead of annexing this one.

You do a mighty fine David Brooks imitation, Mr. Bucky. The presentation is so civilize, erudite and practically avuncular that it takes most people a while to realize how outrageous the content really is.

Perceptions are odd things. This weekend when LWM attacked me you had nothing to say. LWM writes to me and I respond, still nothing from you. He writes 5 times to my one --- still nothing from you. Day after day.

Today, I will not even return a comment to him and now you decide I stole the tread. Then you get two more comments added to the long string via your comment. I have made the observation on three occasions that this was out of hand, but you only see the "other" can be at fault. The "evil" libertarian. Boo!

Hmmmmmm. Are you saying that I should tell everyone to bugger off and not come back? Not give anyone a return comment? Are you saying that you wanted to make a nasty little dig like you did without me writing back?

I have been reading this comment section since before it moved to Salon. I was forced to pick a name over here, and over here bucky1 has even made a few comments over the past months --- but on topic --- addressed to Glenn.

Then LWM, St. Paul, and William decided that a non-Democrat was just not going to work out and the rest is history. If you do not like the number of posts, perhaps you will address the trinity; or, even try not reading all the posts.

One last thing; I noticed you were having a spot of fun earlier on the thread. Freedom scare you also?