I, "Statist"

Is willing to buy the "morality derives from civics" argument

I'll develop that argument as time permits. It's true--for whatever that's worth.

The difference of opinion:
-- I think "statist' is a bad thing; you think "statist" is a good thing.

The difference in identification:
--I identify with Reagan; you identify with Hitler.

I'm sure you'll deny that last statement, but...
"It's true--for whatever that's worth.'

the notion that morality comes from civics is basically Kantian. As for me identifying with Hitler, it seems you guys started becoming clowns once you started identifying with Reagan.

You sir are an oxymoron to the nth degree and beyond. A liberal CAN NOT be a patriot. The two CAN NOT peacefully co exsist. You have to be ONE or the other not both. Now either drink the kool aid or refuse it like TRUE patriots have done. A true patriot these days is a Republican with the greatest of the patriots being the right wing extremest who the Beltway Bozos loath to pieces. I consider myself to be a sister to the Angry White Men and I love it.

while for liberals believing is seeing." (George Will) This essay, Patriotic Liberal, is "much ado about nothing."

If seven nickels is thirty-five cents, how much is a handful of dimes? The essay's nonsequitur reminds me of the Netflix radio commercials.

It is your unwavering faith in government (of any size) that makes the statist label potentially applicable.

As government grows, it consolidates power. The democratic granting of power to the government does not proceed in a linear fashion.

You argue that "the ungoverned part of society is larger--still savage, still nasty, still operating by fraud and by force, still doing the things that make government necessary in the first place."

The only way this statement has validity is if the argument concerns 'government' or 'no government' - which it does not. In an abstract choice between government and society, you choose government. That is statism.