Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold. Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings.