But I understand why you are weary of "government." And I don't want government to "stear the ship" that's just you putting on me what you view as the opposition to your view. We could absolutely compromise. I rambled off a list of some of the issues I'm more interested in and you said yourself you agreed with most of it. Then, as you said, it's a question of how. In other words, what will happen with no action, what could happen with action (good and bad) and what is the proper way to safely incetivize or spur certain things for the national good to move forward while avoiding the pit falls. It's really not as hard as you are making it out to be. And quite frankly, a lot of the liberal and conservative media make it seem like the reasonable people in either parties don't understand this when in fact they do...and it's the politics that don't mesh.
I mean just look at what you are saying. I want government to run the ship? No, that's not true at all. You want to scale back government? You want to reform government so it's negative effects are less. When framed as "steer the ship" v. "scale back" it's oppsoite. When framed as "react and help in a smart way" v. "do no harm" it's not. And regardless of what anti-government propenents have told you...the later example is absolutely not opposite...not in any of the most successful examples in modern times looking to rise in the next century and not in our own history. Strong public-private partnetships with good leadership and smart strategy create prosperity. Anti-government philophy does not. Communism does not. This stuff is obvious.