[Urbane Guerrilla]

Bruce is in the unhappy position of defending undemocracy from democracy. It's really quite an absurd position for someone of Bruce's fundamental understanding of human rights and civil liberties to take, I must say. He's out of ideas: he cannot show that non-democracy better suits certain peoples, whereas I can show that democracy suits every human living, and keeps them richer too. His last several posts have been ad-hominem only, and we all know what that means. Not only that, they're detumescing -- limper and limper and limper. No blood flowing, nourishing the substance.

I'm the partisan of democracy here -- he... well, he needs to become one. It's not exactly hard, but somehow for him it's uncomfortable. What, because he'd end up sitting near me? The wife tells me my physical frame is quite cuddly -- "cuddliscious" being her term.

Our chief difference, thee and me DanaC, is that we're working from different paradigms of government's proper sphere -- what, that is, it should be doing. There are philosophical and utilitarian arguments for either paradigm; for me the question is which arguments are the better. For twenty years plus I've been persuaded of the libertarian notion that government should be minimalist.

Now frankly, if you're going to call what I've written self-deluded, you are staggering under an enormous burden of proof. And so far, you've not done any proving. Since I am not self-deluded, you can't show I am, but I invite you to try anyway. Most of my opposition can't justify their stands -- some of them cannot justify themselves.