I find an appropriate ending to the recent holiday debate in Prof
Dumas' calibration of the degree of his libertarianism. (I trust that
he will allow similar calibration for those on "socialist,"
"communist," "Stalinist," blue-state loving left.)  I believe that it
is this kind of calibration that the country has been doing for more
than 215 years.  While engaged in the process of national
calibration/re-calibration, we fought a civil war and survived serial
economic depressions; dealt with slavery and genocide as we pursued
our putative "destiny."  In my lifetime, the struggle has continued
as an occasionally friendly, often rancorous, too often deadly clash
of world (and Constitutional) views. Let us hope for a more peaceful
future.

Prof Dumas evokes the name of Jefferson as presiding over a most
nearly desirable epoch of American history.  In the many debates over
the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses of Article
I-8 of the Constitution, it is Jefferson (who, by the way, did not
directly participate in drafting the Constitution) that is seen as
the primary proponent of "mini" government doing only that was
absolutely "necessary" and specifically enumerated in that document.
It is Alexander Hamilton (who had a major role in shaping the
Constitution and even more vital role in selling it to the American
people) who is generally considered to have had a somewhat more
expansive view for the role of a strong central government.  Yet it
was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase (all those red states; ah, the
conspiracy begins!) that sets the most prominent and powerful
precedent FOR expansive government. Despite libertarian nostalgia for
our 3rd president's administration, this act, no-where enumerated in
the Constitution, threatened the very existence of the young
republic, nearly provoked an earlier civil war (then, as now [?], the
blue states contemplated secession) and, at least indirectly, led to
the death of Hamilton. (Hamilton comes to the defence of the
Republic, if not his president, after Vice President Burr, with
visions of the becoming king of a new blue-state nation, kills him in
a duel. I see a parable.) By the way, Jefferson leaves office
"panting for retirement," having involved the country in Europe's
Napoleonic conflicts.  It may depend for what you're nostalgic.

I suppose it's the "secular-humanist-relativist" in me, but I find it
curious that Prof Dumas takes the "optimist" high ground (to Prof
Efaw's alleged socialist pessimism) with his trust in the charity of
his fellow men and then points to a basic "laziness" in certain other
of his fellows absent the "responsibilities" imposed by a "free
market."  I find this latter proposition pessimistic, if not cynical.
(Yet, I'll make no claim of higher optimism; only another great
victory for irony.)

Absolute faith in the free market, in its rewards and punishments, in
the rational behavior and responsibility that it allegedly imposes,
even in the faith that it's possible for it to be truly free, seems
to me utter folly.  I would say the same about any  absolutist,
fundamentalist system I know of for negotiating relationships with
our fellow human beings. Let us continue to calibrate.  The
Constitution, whatever else, provides us an excellent framework for
this effort.