[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
People have been trying to figure out politics and economics for thousands of years. Thinking critically for several years in no way gives you license to start concluding that people who disagree with you are delusion or motivated by some hypothetical psychological compulsion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? People *are* biased and delusional. I am and you are. We might seem to be more reasonable than others, but at our core we're all biased to what we believe, which is no better than what anyone else believes.

People are motivated by all sorts "psychological compulsions." And I think the desire to form unique solutions is one of them.

It's not that I don't want to make "good faith efforts" to understand what my "opponents" think; it's just that exploring biases requires an assumed truth. And all I'm interested in this thread is exploring bias.

I've said several times that the same case can be made for other ideologies (just for different reasons). Whether you realize it or not, you're the only one who's being closed minded here. You fail to allow for the possibility that libertarianism *could be* "right" (which is all that is required to explore my suggestion in the OP). Some of us happen to think libertarianism is good. To us it's truth. You disagree. Fine. I'm not excluding the possibility that your ideas are "right" and others (like me) just don't see it because of some bias of our own; please don't make the same exclusion for our ideology.

[ QUOTE ]
OP doesn't want the thread going in this direction, so I'll leave it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the courtesy. I think we're still not seeing eye to eye though on what exactly I'm trying to express. Oh well. My apologies again for making the OP read like "this is the only reason" as opposed to "this is one possible reason." The latter was all I meant. The wording was mostly for effect, since this thread only seemed to be of interest to the choir anyways.