"The fact that you have not the ability to understand my logic nor refute it says a hell of a lot more about your emotional state of dependency then it does mine."
For openers, I wasn't talking about your "emotional state of dependency." I said you've no idea how looney you sound. And, clearly, you don't.
As for your logic, you might want to consider the fact that you aren't a Great Communicator.
"In the entire history of the world," you assert, "it can be shown that as a more centralized form of gains more power and control it becomes more abusive towards its people."
(By the way, any statement that begins "In the entire history of the world it can be shown" is, automatically, suspect.)
You seem to harken to some sort of at least mildly bucolic state of nature, a pastoral wonderland in which the complex, interwoven ties of modern society are replaced by reverence for a Jeffersonian dream that didn't exit in even Jefferson's time.
I pointed out your foolishness with my reference to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. For therein is a perfect example of government intervening in an area of public concern for the public good. A development you'd presumably oppose (and, if not oppose, then twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make comport with the views you've stated here).
In general, Americans have been pretty adept at working with a system them limits drifts towards tyranny. There have been exceptions - Joe McCarthy, for example - but their run tends to be comparatively brief.
Simply put, Dirk, life in the state of nature for which you yearn does not exist in any form other than the one Thomas Hobbes described more than 350 years ago as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
There's a social contract, as Hobbes observed. And to think otherwise is to life in that perfect city, way up in the clouds, Aristophanes dubbed Cloud Cuckoo Land.
