I've already been over the conflict between reality and the idea that authoritarianism is primarily a conservative phenomenon.

And I've already pointed out more times than I can count that both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were equally--extremely--authoritarian conservative. There's no juice in trying to distort what I said. You know better.

Ayn Rand's attempt to logick humans is, as always, superficially plausible; and, as always, so limited in scope and understanding of human nature as to be useless. Let's cut to the chase: If Objectivism is so powerful, so right, and conveys so much insight into human affairs, then why hasn't it taken the world by storm? Why aren't Objectivists running the show?

Listen to what Ayn Rand is saying about negotiation and compromise: She's promising you that if you are the "rational" one, you will always win in those situations. Objectivism doesn't seem to deliver on its promises.

I get that you're describing the world as you wish it worked, with "rational" human beings who always agreed with you. But please don't insult my intelligence by holding up this utopian vision and trying to convince me that it in any way describes this world.

It occurs to me to ask: Are your colleagues Scott and Phil wrong because they don't couch their Conservatism in logick and a patina of Science? Is their support for your beliefs...er, sorry, scientific truths...only a happy coincidence, and--dare I say it?--they're only "useful idiots" who support your cause? Or could it be that the gut matters, too, and that sometimes the gut speaks the human truth more clearly than the brain?

Ever notice that I almost never argue with Scott and Phil? It's hardly because they're not worthy opponents, but just the opposite: it's because of my craven calculation that I can never win an argument with their guts. As a human myself, and not a disembodied brain floating in a jar, I recognize that they're speaking truth, even if it may differ from my truth.

I vividly remember one thread from long ago, an intellectualized discussion of terrorism, when Phil brought me up short, saying in effect, "how dare you play intellectual games when the life of my family is on the line?" What can you say? He was so damn right, and us eggheads were so damn wrong. We forgot the gut in the pursuit of rightness points.

To wrap it up with a bow: The purpose of compromise in a democracy can never be realization of one's personal principles, which as you point out can never be compromised. Do you think the Founders would have designed the system to exclude principle? Of course not. Rather, the goal is a strictly human one, to leave everybody as happy as possible, or at least as little dissatisfied as possible, at the end of the day. That's what works in primate society.

I'm motivated to find a way to compromise with Phil and Scott in a way I'll never be with you and your logical arguments. It's simple to see why: They make a human appeal, one primate to another, "I'm hurtin'!", and my primate brain, with its gift for modeling other minds, especially those of other members of my tribe, resonates in distress. My reaction is absolutely irrational and cannot be expressed in any sort of logic, yet it's a real force in human affairs.

You're perceiving only a part of the picture, Tom. You might want to have your brain decanted from its jar and restored to a body. I guarantee you, things will look differently then.