Oh yes, I like that one a lot. Our system was designed to give the citizenry the permanent whip hand over the politicians, and never let them forget where their power comes from. I take a particularly dim view of shenanigans like gerrymandering political districts that shield politicians from the judgment of the people. That politicians of all persuasions are perpetually trying to alter the balance of power is just human nature, and resisting it ought to be a routine task of civic life.

While I am against invasive laws, I am also a shameless pragmatist and I believe that brave and worthy individuals do what is required in time of crisis, with full willingness to face the consequences of their actions.

You're right. I think I'd be less upset about what I see as Bush violating the limits of his Constitutional power if he'd step up and accept responsibility, and accept the consequences. But to not only endlessly rationalize and dodge and weave and deny, but to get together with his colleagues in Congress to retroactively make his actions legal...that's craven cowardice. Considering Dubya's bio, I guess I shouldn't be surprised--his whole life has been about evading responsibility.

Here's a bumpersticker for beleagured Classic Conservatives: "What would Goldwater do?"

"Yeah, I authorized wiretaps and torture, because that's what I think is necessary. Ya don't like it, impeach me, or shut the hell up. Next question." All I ask is a straight up or down proposition, not this endless stonewalling and chaff barrages and smoke and mirrors, and counterattacking with charges of "treason!". If I lose, I want to lose fair and square, and not feel like I've been tricked and cheated.

It troubles me that we seem to be obsessed with reducing to law many things that have been done in the name of common sense forever. Common sense usually prevails while laws can be misused.

In a perfect world we would be a government of individuals under natural law instead of laws created by individuals. Until then we do the best we can and the less the better.

If you ever wonder whether I'd agree with that, just consider how I approach moderating the Zone. People sometimes complain we don't have enough rules, but nobody ever complains we have too many. I trust you as a moderator because you put commonsense and natural law before rules.

But the difference is one of scale. Groups of a hundred people or so can live peaceably quite well under commonsense and natural law, but how do you pull it off when your community has a population of a quarter-billion people? Rules come with size. Federalism is one way to minimize the negative consequences of size, but it has its limits.

Now, if you want to talk about how breaking up the United States into much smaller political units would increase our freedom and generally make life all-around nicer for everybody, I'm all ears. You'll be happier in an independent Mississipi, and I'll be happier in an independent Republic of California, and I think we'd all get along better if we weren't politically in each others pockets all the time.