That’s good – the first step is to recognize the problem. )

Re, “everything that is political is bad.” You grossly oversimplify my position – it is definitely not the simple black and white you suppose. I agree that not every single thing done by a political body is bad (I thought that was self-evident). The problem is that in many areas the trendline is bad (i.e. where the scope of the political increases, freedom decreases).

Re, “politics introduces major problems, that we should all be suspicious of the government, and that government intervention should be minimized.” I agree, though my opinion of minimized is radically different from yours.

Re, “everything political is doomed.” Again this is not my position, and I’m not inclined to leaps of faith. I agree that some (very limited) activities are properly in scope for government. The fact that those duties are sometimes executed poorly does not mean they’re all doomed.

Re, “government has to be accountable to the people and the people have to stay informed and vigilant. The fact that government messes up a lot isn’t a reason to abandon government. It’s our responsibility to hold them accountable.” I wish it were that way – we’d have lots fewer problems. Unfortunately what you describe is completely unrealistic and does not happen. That is an example of where I see your thinking as naïve and simplistic. Oh, and the abandon government line is a straw man.

Re, “you equate trying to advocate better solutions with trying to encourage bad solutions.” I’m not making the logical error you suggest; I have a different opinion about what “good solution” means. For the most part, what you consider a better solution is IMO a bad solution. So, from my perspective you are encouraging bad solutions.

I don’t know why or how you reach the conclusions you do about what position is, but you should stop because your accuracy is abysmal. I’m sure you sincerely believe you’re trying to make the ratchet go the other way. I just think you’re wrong, and your ideas are often dangerous and antithetical to freedom. I’ve attempted to explain why (the nature-of-politics / blind-spot thing), but I don’t think I’ve communicated successfully yet. I freely admit I’m not a great writer, but perhaps if you’d stop thinking of me as some faith-driven simplistic dim-wit it would be a good start.

RE: “When government embarks on some intervention, they will not stay on the moderate course you write about.”

I recognize this – that’s why government has to be accountable to the people and the people have to stay informed and vigilant. The fact that government messes up a lot isn’t a reason to abandon government. It’s our responsibility to hold them accountable.

RE: “I’m in the crowd trying to reach the switch to make the ratchet go the other way; you’re in the crowd making that harder to do (or maybe even helping turn the ratchet).”

See, this is the problem – you equate trying to advocate better solutions with trying to encourage bad solutions. There’s no point in even talking about this if that’s the position you take. I’m the trying to make the ratchet go the other way. I think you’re fundamentally making it harder by not only criticizing the bad solutions, but criticizing the good solutions too. That leaves a vaccuum (because of the role special interests play in politics) makes more bad solutions more likely. I don’t want that.