[Whilom]

Indeed, you 'meant' to support our current political 'business as usual'. You seem to deny there is anything wrong with the massive errosions of individual liberty we have suffered in the last century. Can you say this isn't so?

Telling me once again what I meant. This is precisely why the rest of us won't let self-selected "individualist-objectivists" decide what the Constitution means. And yes I do deny "massive erosions of individual liberty...in the last century." Unless, of course, you consider it your individual liberty to produce, transport, sell, and consume illegal drugs. Otherwise, the record is spotty, some cause for cheer, some for concern. I would say that the greatest cause for cheer and the greatest cause for alarm in the past century both occurred in our political liberties. In that span, women and Blacks secured the right to vote. On the other hand, the concentration of money in the federal government's hands threatens to overwhelm states, counties, and municipalities. Conservatives welcome help from individualist-objectivists to work with us through the legal process established by the Constitution to stem then reverse that tide.

[Roscoe]

Unless, of course, you consider it your individual liberty to produce, transport, sell, and consume illegal drugs.

It's nearly all they think about.

[tpaine]

Indeed, you 'meant' to support our You seem to deny there is anything wrong with the massive errosions of individual liberty we have suffered in the last century. Can you say this isn't so?

yes I do deny "massive erosions of individual liberty...in the last century."

Thank you. - Your denial of obvious factual reality is all I wanted to establish in his exchange.