I guess the impasse' we're at with you, Bart, is about the degree of tolerance for government intrusion in our lives as citizens. It's a matter of principle rather than one of pragmatism.

The tyrannies in other countries that you've experienced, while germane to your reasoning, is not a relevant feature in a discussion about what we in the U.S. should accept as our way of life -- that is, one modeled on liberty.

A "by comparison" line of argumentation is not reasoning from principles: it's reasoning from exigencies. This is distasteful to me, and perhaps that's what the fundamental difference is between the position I take as a just one and what I am guessing that you take as a given and immutable practicality of modern life. In short, my thesis is this: The moral is the practical.

And by the way, I don't love my country any less than those who proclaim it explicitly. Just because I'm vocal in my disagreements with some here about how to defend it doesn't mean I'm ambivalent about its continuance or my obligations toward that end.

I'm unpersuaded by what's implied in your statements, that because the hard fist of government exists elsewhere -- when, really, it's unnecessary anywhere -- I should just be thankful for what I've got, when what I've got is life under a constitution in shreds. On top of that, I have to tolerate representatives who attend to their personal and political interests far more than to those of their electorate. This is to say nothing of the modal tyrant occupying the White House. Living with this hideousness is far more than any U.S. citizen deserves.

Thanks, but I've observed enough of the lives of others by now to know how fragile my own liberties are right here at home.