I think your last point on Peterson is very characteristic of preparation. He had prepared material for key questions, which allowed him to put together statements that were readily articulated. The slightest scratching of the surface tends to animate him a bit, and a lot of the characteristics that I find more disturbing about him come to the fore.

As to the State’s place in social engineering, I kind of get the idea he was trying to articulate. He was suggesting that the State should actively cultivate socially ethical positions that are relevant to the society at large rather than attempting to legislate them. To me, the State’s place in ethics should be to cultivate systems that produce the least friction in the greatest diversity of positions. I believe it is a sign of greater societal effectiveness that a society can cater to the greatest diversity of beliefs and remain cohesive, versus generating the greatest level of conformity.