crickets...easier to stick to the low hanging fruit....I think the "ancient" references he made are simply an acknowledgement that these (more pertinent)arguments have existed for quite sometime and pre-date the current or modern apparent belief that history began in the 1960's or some other time in the 20th century. The entire dynamic has changed, the "ancient" arguments(which were much the same arguments of Locke and Hobbs... Burke? I mean, on the overall scope of the debate in an historical context it's truly amazing to look at where these progressives fall... "Individuality is left out of their scheme of government. The state is all in all. Everything is referred to the production of force; afterwards, everything is trusted to the use of it. It is military in its principle, in its maxims, in its spirit, and in all its movements. The state has dominion and conquest for its sole objects—dominion over minds by proselytism, over bodies by arms", and the Founders that produced the Document that we barely cling to today), the very basic arguments of whether the individual is capable of self-governing and the responsibilities that relate or whether the individual is just one in a herd of sheep that must be governed by enlightened individuals who dole out "liberty" in doses of government provisions and dictates.....the progressive argument in all things can be summed up as "we're smart...you are stupid", oozing out of every speech, press conference and arrogant sneer.... so naturally, the inclination is to dismiss any argument(this is a truism that I'd read regarding a leftist mindset that I've found to be quite accurate) that disagrees with their world view regardless of whether or not it conflicts with "natural law", if they've come to the conclusion...it must be "settled science", despite the "shifting sands" of logic, rhetoric and "science" employed to arrive at the conclusion...the "ancient" debate over the "ancient virtue of self-government, and true liberty itself", is dismissed, ridiculed...as someone stated a while back...the argument is no longer over the proper size and role of government but over who is best equipped to steer the behemoth...
"We only know what we know.
On Tuesday, the president of these United States called for an end to the “rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government,” so that he might move forward with his economic agenda uninhibited by “stale political arguments.” It was an interesting moment. The president’s childlike faith in his own ability to direct resources according to his own vision is almost touching in its way, though when the actual costs are accounted for it is terrifying. The president’s understanding of how the economy works is about as sophisticated as was my understanding of anatomy and nutrition at the age of four: Lean this way and we’ll strengthen the middle class, lean that way and we’ll nourish the working poor. He doesn’t even understand the debate that he wants to preempt: It is not only a question of the size of government but a question of what government does.
He only knows what he knows."
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/369884/print
but for a small constantly maligned and marginalized body of thought the debate no longer exists....