Okay, we seem to have a communications problem. I'm not talking about a libertarian utopia, or a system run by "companies." Like Ayn Rand, I believe government has a legitimate function.

I'm talking about how government is done nowadays, and maybe just trying to move it back toward the federalism that was designed into our system at the founding.

Ideally, the Constitution was supposed to chain the central government down enough to prevent it from becoming a tyranny. It hasn't worked that well, mostly because Supreme Courts are made up of human beings, too.

This isn't about creating a utopia. It's about a set of principles, and trying to steer things in the right direction. If there is more than one reasonable way of getting something done, why not pick a way that increases human freedom and choice than the other way around? Small choices, made over time, are what it's about.

In latter times, every choice seems to be in one direction, while the other choices are usually dismissed out of hand. That the choices are often made by those who stand to gain by increased power doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.

It's weird that people with highly effective radar for detecting abuse or concentration of power in the private sector, exposing self-serving policies as bullshit in the process, often have a huge blind spot for the same behaviors by government organizations.

Just a slight aside:

I suspect that if either of us gets our own way at the expense of the other, we both will have failed miserably.

My way doesn't impose on other people by initiated force. What's the other way?