Surrender through Compromise
Some “progressive” liberal commentators occasionally pause briefly from their fearmongering regarding supposedly existential “threats to democracy.” Instead, they argue that Republicans are not interested in “compromising” in favor of the leftward-lurching agenda of the “Democratic-Socialist” party. So what?
Not only is democracy overrated … so is compromise. If someone makes a demand of me for $1 Million when I have no debt or obligation to that person, my reasonable and entirely justifiable response is to refuse to pay any amount. The unfounded demand is not made more “reasonable” by a “compromise,” in which the demand is reduced to a mere $500K.
Undoubtedly, my position is not improved under either scenario. What then would be the point of negotiation, compromise, or bipartisanship? What incentive do I have to participate in a unilateral relationship or one-sided transaction? Altruism or charity? Perhaps, but the manner, amounts, and objects of one’s charity should be matters between the giver, his conscience, and his God.
The objective of the proponent, however, is to make an utterly indefensible demand seem incrementally less unreasonable by comparison: “If you won’t agree to $4.5 Trillion in spending, then we will ‘compromise’ at $2 Trillion.”
If my refusal to pay is followed by threats against me and/or my property, the demands are tantamount to extortion. One seldom, if ever, buys his peace by giving in to extortionists, kidnappers, and terrorists. Instead, a fleeting peace is destroyed as the same or other bad actors are emboldened by the success and incentivized by the potential for profit. The end result is certain both individually and collectively: We get more bad acts … more loss … more harm … more destruction … never less.
Coerced charity and compelled altruism are not “moral” acts on either the parts of the proponent or giver. Furthermore, government should not be trusted as the arbiter of morality. That is a role for which the state is ill-suited and in which it will certainly fail miserably. Interposing the state between a thief and the target of theft and denominating the booty a “tax” does nothing to change materially the nature of the taking or to alter the immorality of the act itself. If the taking is effected through government as to the fruits of one’s labors, the undeniable results are institutional theft and involuntary servitude.
We have become a society, which fetishizes victimhood. When society puts a premium upon being a supposed “victim,” then nearly everyone wants to be a victim. Once all within the populous self-identify as victims based upon some perceived slight, offense, or disadvantage, then life becomes an incessant battle to determine, who among the offended classes is the greatest victim. This results in a headlong race toward mediocrity and the reduction of everyone and everything to the lowest common denominator.
Combine with this the reality that government is management by crisis, and you have a recipe for disaster. Political minions and government technocrats use incessant crises to justify their continued existence and to expand their power and the resulting fiefdoms. They covet and crave power, as well as the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom.
It does not matter if a crisis is naturally occurring or manufactured … real or imagined. In the absence of sufficient crises — whether measured in number or severity — would-be beneficiaries callously allow issues to fester into crises or exacerbate routine events into full-blown crises. Should this too prove insufficient, they are entirely capable of manufacturing crises out of whole cloth.
Their objective is not to solve societal ills but to (halfheartedly) battle them continuously. Why cure a disease when you can be paid to treat it for a lifetime … or forever?
Their objective is not victory but war itself. Everyone has heard, “All is fair … in war.” A perpetual “war footing” is used to excuse all manner of inefficiencies, waste, and destruction. As a result, we have concurrent and successive “wars” against indomitable and nebulous foes such as: poverty, crime, drugs, disease, racism, hate, terror, etc.
“Necessity” is also used to justify erosions of individual liberties and the usurpations of personal freedoms. However, the price demanded by warmongers and profiteers is a price much too high to pay. We are told that we must sacrifice and pay the exorbitant price, but without the possibility of benefit, success, reward, or victory.
Do we negotiate our way to total surrender? Do we compromise ourselves into subjugation? Or, do we stand and fight for right … fight for liberty and freedom … fight for our future and for the future of the nation?
