I find this frustrating with the 1689 Fed position. It seems like every exchange I’ve seen with the Federalist it gets to the Federalist saying: “you don’t get it, here’s a list of books to read.” Is there an exchange where the Federalist admits the other side understands the position but just doesn’t accept it? Or maybe, if truly everyone is misunderstanding the position, there is a fundamental problem with it.The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?
Last edited: