Alright, the following comment to this post is going to a separate entry (with a few small edits). The commenter I’m replying to is one of Kim du Toit’s readers, and I’ll give him credit for wading in here.
"The government exists at the consent of the governed."
Pure fantasy. Someone told you that bromide, or you read it once, and swallowed it without even thinking about it.
I do not consent to it. In fact, clearly, there are millions upon
millions of people who do not consent to it in varying degrees. Me? I
consent to absolutely none of it. Not a single thing.
So, your premise is clearly and obviously completely false.
What’s more, you have read my comments on Kim’s site. You know very
well that I am arguing as opposed to state force. You talk about
"society" and how I need to "compromise," at the same time every one of
my arguments deals with the impossibility of compromise with the
state. If you could compromise with it to any meaningful degree, it
would cease to be the state.
I have never argued against compromise in my life. Can you guess
why? Your compromises are none of my business. Why? because you are
free to make them, or not, and only you can decide the complex value
trade offs involved. I compromise every day: with my wife, family,
employees, clients, hell, even with my dogs. I don’t have to, of
course, and if I don’t, I don’t get locked up, fined, or shot. But I
might end up living like a hermit because nobody wants to associate
with me. In any case, those are all my judgements to make and they’re
none of your business. Ever.
But of course, that’s not what you’re really talking about. You just
wanted people to think that’s what you’re talking about. You want
people to think that I’m uncompromising, and thus, ultimately
"The way to change it is incrementally."
Which means: your [incremental] "changes" imposed upon others who do
not "consent" to such "changes," by force. That is exactly what you
Here’s the deal. You don’t get to escape the true nature of who and what you are on this blog.
You wish to impose your values (incrementally, don’t forget) upon
millions and millions of people who are not hurting anyone at all, who
don’t necessarily share your values, and if they defy having those
values (of yours) imposed upon them, then you would have them thrown in
jail; and if they defend themselves against being so unjustly detained —
when they still haven’t hurt anyone — you will have them subdued at
gunpoint; and should they continue to defy and resist, you will have
Ultimately, those who will not submit to your values, who continue to defy such imposition, ought to be killed.
That is precisely where your conservative republican politics leads. That’s its core essence, nature and character.