Well done, Peter.

This was a nicely articulated reply. I think you'll find many sympathizers in the most general sense. Liberal or Conservative, many among us don't care for the personality type you describe here... I think.

First things first. A while back I said that I believe we are all liberal and conservative. Here'll, I just say that applies to me, and that in general I presume that I am a lot of other 'ists', for where such labels exist they tend to apply to an aspect of the universal human condition. There are definitely some things I am not, mind you, one being an anarchist.

With this in mind, when you said collectivist I asked myself, what does that term mean to me and how can I relate to Peter? I was immediately reminded of my undergrad years, at the University of Oregon, and certain personalities that were very much the annoying kind you describe. Something other than liberal. Things were worse in law school, as the faculty there was much more flagrantly political, and arrogant for having thought that they had gamed the system to their Leftist political agenda.

So, I can relate. Definitely. But I would suggest that 'collectivism' is a much more inclusive concept, in that the requisite arrogance and social engineering is sen to occur at all points along the political spectrum. I believe you are genuine, Peter, but I think maybe you are spinning your wheels a bit too much by focusing on oen area where this occurs.

If I were you - if you haven't alread - I might suggest considering Rush Limbaugh, for one, who in my mind is the Elsworth Toohey of right wing radio. He's a manipulator, a totally arrogant piece, and a very determined engineer of the masses. Recent events have reminded me that the NFL is too,to cite another example, as it silently continues to try to get America to simply accept the fact that justice is served when a man gets a two-game suspension for women-beating. After all, it's all about winning, ain't it?

The list goes on.

The end game of this discussion, if it were to be regarded as a debate, is that somehow all these other analogies are not that. I would suggest going the other way, as finding common denominators here may be the better, more relevant route to take.

Beyond this, a further very good question might go, When does Peter Archaic decide to be a collectivist?

I can think of several instances where I might get my collectivist groove on. One of them concerns climate change and how we might be able to reverse the course we're on. I trust the status quo perception of science, on faith. I can never know it all. But this is one of these situations where I would be willing to impose my will on your life (assuming you think nothing should be done about carbon emissions, for example), because I don't think we can afford to dick around on this matter and allow denialists to seize or stall the agenda. By 'your' I am speaking in the plural. That makes me a 'collectivist,' in this instance.

My follow-up question is, When are you a collectivist?