Sure there is. I'm doing it. Stop me.

I do live the oath, using my definitions. So long as Objectivism advocates insist on atheism, I'm not interested. I am highly interested in Christian Egoism.

Why would you say that I'm "highly critical" of Objectivism? I find most of it perfectly acceptable. What I find problematic is the fundamental premise that owning oneself is self-evident. To me that has been shown to be untrue by historical evidence. I can no more reconcile that than you can reconcile that I believe that the same was bestowed on humanity by God. In fact, my derivation makes more sense, as God gave humans free-will, so some of them choose to use force to oppress their fellow man despite the fact that God gave each of us freedom. The "self-evident" theory would say that freedom should be the norm not the anomaly. I see Objectivism as being Pollyannaish regarding human nature, whereas theist teachings are more pragmatic regarding human failings.

I think that I've said this before, but for the starting point, my moral philosophy and Objectivism are pretty much congruent.

The spending pattern began increasing in the 80's reaching a peak in the 90's and then tapered off through 2010.

Because I couldn't live that oath as you define it.

His genius, if you will, was in getting people to believe in him and in the cause. The Continental Army lost most every battle, but got very lucky in the few critical ones that really mattered - plus an enemy that relied too heavily on conscripts and mercenaries, not fighting for a cause.

One of the true "innovations" during the Revolution was not even a Washington or von Steuben developed tactic. It was those pesky colonist farmers (militia) who thought it better to hide behind trees and fire at the red coats (very easy to pick out, what with their red coats). The tactics of the day were to line up in a skirmish line 3 deep, the first course firing, the second aiming, and the 3rd reloading. The Brits complained about the colonists "not fighting fair" by hiding behind trees. I see this innovation in warfare tactics similar to the asymmetric warfare happening today. As I type this, I just got a notice that a 2 star gen was killed inside the Afghan military academy compound. That, too, is "not fair" but is something that we have to adapt to or lose.

True. Reagan had the benefit of a demographic that was approaching peak spending. Largest boom in population growth (ever, I believe) reaching their peak spending period (46.5 yrs after birth - so that started in 1991 for the boomers born in 1945). Ten years earlier, they would have been in their mid-30's. Think about your own spending pattern, that's when many start increasing their incomes and buying more stuff, with it reaching a peak by 46.5.

Even Carter would have looked like a competent president had he been elected in 1992. You would have had to try very hard to screw up that economy.

Likewise, whomever is elected in 2016 will at best need to keep gov't out of the way so as not to further degrade the economy, but it won't likely rebound to any significant degree until the early '20's (children of the baby boomers).

So, according to your rules, I'm out.

5) Trying Hiraghm for blowing up windmills...

Thus is why we live in a republic. Thus is why I cite the Constitution and will have no truck with "precedence" or SCOTUS "interpretations" of the Constitution.
---
"Cogley: "Books, young man, books. Thousands of them. If time wasn't so important, I'd show you something. My library. Thousands of books."

Captain James T. Kirk: "And what would be the point?"

Cogley: "This is where the law is. Not in that homogenized, pasteurized synthesizer. Do you want to know the law? The ancient concepts in their own language? Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha III? Books."

Captain James T. Kirk: "You have to be either an obsessive crackpot who's escaped from his keeper, or Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law."

Cogley: "You're right on both counts. Need a lawyer?"

Captain James T. Kirk: "I'm afraid so. "

"They chose their field I assume with some care"

Negative. One of the things they had in common was that they were renaissance men. Adams was a farmer. Also a lawyer.

And one of my favorite characters in literature is Jubal Harshaw, also a lawyer - yet so much more.

Actually, Hoover was only "terrible" because he had been left an economy verging on popping the largest "bubble" in history - by Calvin Coolidge - you guessed it, a lawyer.

Hoover dealt with the economic collapse poorly, no doubt, but wasn't the cause.

I'll give you Carter - but then just look at his schooling and that will tell a lot ;-)

A system of private police, insurance, and arbitration services has a well thought out method of implementation.

Trouble is, they control the body of law/regulations and can change it seemingly faster than an external entity can react. Look at tax law, for instance. I don't know about you, but I'm still getting updates to my electronic tax prep software well into March.

Well, truth be told, Washington wasn't a "brilliant military leader." He was a fair tactician and strategist, but was able to hold both soldier and legislator together under seemingly insurmountable odds. A little luck (or was that divine providence?) didn't hurt, either.