As with most other articles about politics, it's easy to miss the forest through the trees. There's one most important, indisputable point: that we can generall

As with most other articles about politics, it's easy to miss the forest through the trees. There's one most important, indisputable point: that we can generally be divided into two groups politically, and those divisions go well beyond opinions developed over time. How you classify these groups (liberal vs. conservative, individualist vs. collectivist, voluntaryist vs. statist -- I tend to use the language of i vs. c) doesn't really matter. The two groups exist and are verifiably distinguishable. The important part (and I say this as a libertarian) is that both groups are necessary to the health of a functioning society. It is both useful and necessary for (I'm generalizing here) one group to focus on individualistic pursuits while the other focuses on the well-being of the collective at large -- and we probably would have a healthy, functioning society if each side could appreciate the other's differences of perspective. Instead, both sides are mutually antagonistic, and exploited by the political class, which almost always acts in its own exclusive interest.