Your either misunderstanding or misstating my position. I'll try to be more clear with my responses.

>>The government should concern itself with security. It should be the #1 priority, because without it there is no country to bitch about.
>
>But the remaining statement above is totally absurd! But it does serve to show how 'selling the nightmare' is working beautifully in the heads of many.

Security is more than military, I include police, firefighters, coast guard, border agents, intelligence agents (foreign and domestic), emergency management agents and others whose jobs revolve around the security of the citizens of the country.

>A country that doesn't have "projecting power" and 'remaining the world's only super-power' and 'protecting economic interests by military means' doesn't really have too many worries about "security".

See above. There are daily threats to the security of all counries.

>At least not so much that they support a hugely expensive military for the purpose of fighting 'terrorism' (which, for the record, they fight in the proper way, using standard and sub-standard 'police methods'.).

Should I bite here? Just a nibble...
Thank's to the security provided by America, other countries don't have to.

>The purpose of a government has "security" as a minor incidental, the major purpose of governments being to make life better for the people who elected them.

It is the responsibility of the individual to make life better for themselves. The government may or may not help in this depending on one's point of view regarding various legislation.

>This includes things like police and law enforcement
Again, see security above.

>ensuring good infrastructure for the use/benefit of the people who elected them,

We agree that this is a responsibility of the government, however, security is more important. Without security the infrastructure is not safe (see Iraq)

>ensuring that the people are educated

We agree to a point. I believe the government should provide its citizens with a solid educational foundation from which they may choose a path to their future. However, I also believe that the current system in the US is woefully inadequate and inept. In the long term, meaning decades, it is doing more harm than good.

>ensuring that there is a 'level playing field' for EVERY citizen.

Which "playing field" are you referring to?

>That your media and government and corporations have convinced you and countless others of things like:

or...I have a mind of my own and believe in capitalism as the greatest source of technological, social and monetary advancement that the world has ever known, and I do not want to see it marginalized by bad ideas whose failures are already known.

Most of these we've also covered before but it's been a while so lets recap:

>- socialized medicine is bad;
Socialism seeks to undermine capitalism. I'd prefer to lower prices through free-markets, instead of looking to the government.

>- unions are bad;
Unions had their time and gave power to those who had little. Nowadays, the individual, by the merit of their abilities, can negociate from a position of great strength by themselves. If unions were accomplishing positive advancement for their members they would be increasing in power, instead union membership has been on the decline. Except amongst teachers and actors of course. (Forced membership is wonderful, don't you think?)

>- people can't be greedy but corporations must be greedy;
Why can't people be greedy?
"Greed for lack of a better word, is good" -Gordon Gekko (Wall Street 1987)

>- military might is necessary because everyone is jealous of us;
Military might is necessary because the US and its allies have the most to lose. Besides, someone has to be able to back up the UN's empty threats.

>- global warming is a figment of the imagination;
The warming is not in dispute. The cause and what it means is in dispute.

>- drugs must be high priced to support research into new drugs;
R&D money doesn't grow on trees. It makes sense to put profits back into the company for future developments, regardless of the industry.

What is the price of life? The AIDS cocktails, blood thinners and anti-chloresteral drugs have saved millions of lives.

>- being rich is everyone's ultimate goal and anyone thinking differently is a mis-fit;

Not everyone's, but it is mine. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes life a lot easier. If you choose to live like a pauper, that's fine by me, just don't ask me to pay for your healthcare, education, retirement, etc...

>- working longer hours for less pay/benefits is good for "productivity";
From a business standpoint : This can be quantitatively measured. If production related to cost goes up then you should push for this. If not then seek another solution.
From an employee standpoint : If this is unacceptable to you then choose another option (new job, start your own business).

>- charity, and not government, is wholly responsible for assisting the disadvantaged;

Not wholly, but charitable organizations should definately take the lead. Especially at the local level. Local charities are much better equipped to handle the disadvantaged in their communities. They are staffed with volunteers who care a great deal about the individuals they are helping. When disasters strike, they know the area and have a closer connection to the people affected. They are not encumberred by a giant buracracy and the money has a shorter path to those in need and less chance of being gobbled up by managerial saleries.

>... and a whole lot of other BUNK only makes me feel sad for my southerly neighbours.

If we don't agree with you, then our beliefs are "bunk"? Are you sure you aren't an American?