You know, you're probably one of the smartest people here, and I suspect we'd both do a lot better sitting on opposite sides of a cafeteria table somewhere than trying to trade essays back and forth.

There's too damn much groundwork that needs to be laid on this kind of discussion, and neither one of us is getting ours across. I think it's a paradigm gap.

...Why would I want anyone who viewed my opinions in such contempt making any decisions that govern my life?

...Maybe they just don't want to live in the world you want. They certainly don't want someone like you in charge of it.

"In charge of it?" I honestly don't understand. This isn't about choosing between me running your life, or somebody else doing it. This is about someone running your life, or not running your life. If I were "in charge," given my beliefs, what possible decisions do you think I would make that "govern your life?"

To take the two philosophical extremes (where neither of us actually are, but it's for clarity)

Libertarianism, for want of a better defining word, demands nothing of people except that they are not permitted to enslave others for their needs. Socialism, for want of a better defining word, demands that people must be enslaved to other people's needs, or to the State.

These are not two sides of the same coin. A libertarian society would not affect how a socialist would live his own life. A socialist society would not leave the libertarian alone in the same way.

I'm not trying to be condescending, or arrogant. I'm trying to get a concept across, and it's entirely possible that it's not something that can be done in this format with my inconsistent and somewhat ham-handed communication skills. Not your fault--mine. The more I try to explain this stuff, the worse I seem to piss you off.

Can you give me some idea of any literature on this subject you've already read? Rand, Hayek, Sowell, Von Mises, Friedman? If there's some place we've both been, it might be a better place to start.