Sceptic cynic, here, with a booming voice tuned by active construction sites, hearing damage and tinnitus. Unfortunately, most people are uncomfortable with my volume unless i stand 6 to 10 feet away. Then they are uncomfortable to talk in a volume that will carry that distance. I guess people just like being quiet as mice incase the"cat" is listening.(there i go again with my cynicism)

Had to really think hard on this one, didn't want to think about it probably. Am really just discovering how radical I could be. How my words thrown out in a chaotic manner, that I tell myself is just being 'honest, can do some real damage. When I read them and they hurt me, thats not good. Am starting to understand why, but its deep stuff, but am working through it.

Are you sure that you are a liberal and not a libertarian if you look at the political climate today classical liberals and libatarions have more common ground for negation then republicans and democrats

I think this recent vote about the NEA and the border wall is a good example. We want a king when we like the king and we don't when we don't. Why conservatives are in favor of rule by the flick of a pen when it is a GOP president or visa versa I will never understand.

I advocate for governmental deregulation of all industries.

I "know" instinctively that we have "too much" government regulation.

But I wonder if actual, 100% deregulation would be "best".

Luckily, our society will never implement 100% deregulation .... so I don't have to worry about possible negative consequences!!!

For me, the vaccine against radicalism is the knowledge that there is a difference between communities of consensus and the civil polity. So as radical and categorical and simplistic as I may be in conversations with people who agree with me, that basically isn’t “politics”, it’s tribal bonding.

“Politics” begins when you have people (and groups of people) who disagree, and yet who choose to live as neighbours in rather than in a state of war.

So I commit equally to the civic community as to my own community of consensus.

I will try to clarify and promote my beliefs publically, but I am prepared to help you out if a storm hits, even if we disagree on lots of things.

And I think that means I not only have to listen to you when we are debating other public policies, but I owe you the respect of truly letting your words reach me, at least to the extent that I see you as a person with beliefs, and not some abstract representative of a category.

But maybe beyond that I can make my worldview more sophisticated and nuanced by incorporating some of what you say.

I also accept that we have to live as neighbours. The only way for one community of consensus to “win” and displace or dominate the others entirely is through violence. I reject that.

So it’s a combination of relational commitments to those who disagree with me, a commitment to civic virtues of respect “across the aisle”, and a touch of intellectual humility and openness that gets me there.