<'Fraid not, Tom. I meant specifically "the others", those who hold beliefs different from yours. Intellectual xenophobia. Sorry you wasted a perfectly good diatribe.

The key point you're missing is that with anything less than universal sufferage, somebody gets to set the criteria for the right to vote, and therefore has the power, and will use it, to stack the deck politically.



Lets take an omniscient perspective, and go to the hypothetical situation where there is one side that is clearly wrong, and one side that is certainly right. but they both they are both stuck in a political system that treats both sides equall. both sides are convinced the other is wrong and both are taking steps to outvote each other. Does your philosophy work? What is the difference between how youare viewing this right now? does your scenarion really help whichever side is right?

I suspect that you are viewing this liberal verses conservative thing as if both sides might be equally right or wrong. But one could be right and the other worng. Both sides must struggle for power over the other, and they always will.

Define "informed". Reading the Wall Street Journal? Would you concede that somebody who reads the NY or LA Times, WashPost, CNN, et al might also be informed, even if you don't agree with the perspective? If the answer is no, how can you defend yourself against a charge of arrogance?


is it arrogant to call things the way you see it? When it is clear as day to someone that one side is wrong, is it arrogant to default on their own common sense? No. Arrogant is confidence in ones self beyond what is normal.

Your thesis, taken as a whole, demonstrates my point: If it were up to you, you'd gerrymander by demographics. Nobody, liberal or conservative, can be trusted with that power.

neither side is in charge, they both battle it out and you acheive something in between. .

-Justin Kelly