—“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton 

Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum.

I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism.

I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak)

I’d like to debate Harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society.

Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual.

I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution.

I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies.

I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures.

I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding.

I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out.

I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….