plan to obliterate companies that have the nerve to get too damn big by initiating government-controlled investment in potential competitors

That's quite an extreme interpretation of what I relayed about what I'd understood the idea of "socialized capital" to mean.

I admit that to somebody who believes that concentrations of power corrupt our society, the notion of waving a magic scythe and trimming those concentrations down to size is seductive, but not something I'd seriously consider.

Providing for widespread access to capital is more attractive because it's a positive intervention in the marketplace rather than a punitive one. Except, of course, to those who'd thought that their fortunes made them invulnerable to competition; those people would experience a rude awakening indeed. But should I shed any tears for oligarchs facing stronger competition? Would you?

That's "creative destruction" that applies to everybody. Why should only workers experience the pain of competition, and the CEOs whose lousy decisions and inability to deal with competition, not to mention occasional outright criminality, be shielded from the consequences? Like poor Ken Lay, sniveling about losing billions in paper wealth, and having to get by on only a couple of hundred million in hard assets. Oh boo hoo!

As to "socialized capital" being a "centrally-planned economy", that to me is a bizarre take on it. It seems the essence of decentralization to equip large numbers of individuals with greater power to compete against entrenched interests. Besides, an oligarchy is a centrally-planned economy, in the sense that it's planned for the benefit of a small number. Seems like "socialized capital" would be a two-pronged attack on central planning. Despite the unfortunate choice of words, "socialized capital" sounds to me distinctively not like collectivism.

you might want to do a little refresher research on who some of the Founders thought should have a say in how the government was run. Start with Madison.

I'm aware of those divisions, Tom. They preceded the Founders and continue to this day. Whigs and Tories, Democrats and Republicans, Labor and Tories...it's an eternal argument between those who favor universal and direct democracy, and those who would've preferred to crown Washington King and become the new aristocrats themselves.

They managed to boostrap our democracy by democratically reaching a compromise, and that's the inivisible social structure that I've alluded to as emergent from their visible designs. Just as their compromise shaped the government, the structure of the government records their compromise, and as the people participate in government they constantly reenact that compromise.

Until recently, it seems, and that's the essence of my bitching. The Founders did not intend for either side to win and capture the government permanently; the whole purpose of the exercize was to prevent that from happening. Yet, as is well documented, Republicans in recent years have refined techniques for securing power in the hands of the Party and its small base, disenfranchising not only the opposition's constituency but their own as well.

I hasten to remind you that every time I mention this I'm careful to point out the certainty that Democrats will adopt the same tactics the first chance they get (and, recursively, I'm carefully pointing it out now; will underlining help it sink in?).

I know this is hard to reconcile with a binary worldview, but my lack of enthusiasm for Democrats as well as Republicans is what compels me to think about a third path, like a reform movement independent of the parties (and not a political party itself; that's a fool's game). You can't fix the system from inside one of the two organizations responsible for corrupting it in the first place. You have to stand outside, and, with a large enough base of disaffected citizens behind you, commence collective bargaining with the two Parties to put them back in their place.

As fierce a partisan as you are, Tom, I think that once you've accepted that the political wheel still turns, albeit with much more difficulty these days, you might see your political self-interest in supporting a centrist movement that will reign in Democrats as well as Republicans. In the long run you wouldn't get to see the pendulum swing back to the right as far as it has, but you won't have to endure as extreme a Democratic cycle either.

That's compromise, Tom, of the kind the Founders were wise enough to make. Can we do any less?