Posted on 01/09/2005 6:10:27 PM PST by NMC EXP
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.
It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise...
There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? and once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest...
There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement...
Today, however, when people speak of "compromise", what they mean is not a legitimate mutual concession or a trade, but precisely the betrayal of one's principles - the unilateral surrender to any groundless, irrational claim. The root of that doctrine is ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine.
The immorality of this doctrine - and the reason why the term "compromise" implies, in today's general usage, an act of moral treason - lies in the fact that it requires men to accept ethical subjectivism as the basic principle superceding all principles in human relationships and to sacrifice anything as a concession to one another's whims....
The excuse given in all such cases, is that the "compromise" is only temporary and that one will reclaim one's integrity at some indeterminate future date. But one cannot correct a husband or wife's irrationality by giving in to it and allowing it to grow. One cannot achieve the victory of one's ideas by helping to propagate their opposite. One cannot offer a literary masterpiece, "when one has become rich and famous," to a following one has acquired by writing trash. If one found it difficult to maintain one's loyalty to one's own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals - which help augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight - will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible.
There can be no compromise on moral principles. "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ( Atlas Shrugged. ) The next time you are tempted to ask: "Doesn't life require compromise?", translate that question into it's actual meaning: Doesn't life require the surrender of that which is true and good to that which is false and evil?" The answer is that that precisely is what life forbids - if one wishes to achieve anything but a stretch of tortured years spent in progressive self-destruction." -Ayn Rand, 1962, from The Virtue of Selfishness
And additionally, regarding the RTKBA:
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." "If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."
-Ayn Rand, 1962, from The Virtue of Selfishness ( Recommended! Excellent reading on her rational Objectivist philosophy! )
Sound wisdom.
Likewise,
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction".
~GK Chesterton
or
"No wafflin' allowed"
~IOTN
One of my favorites.
Is there any politician who doesn't believe in limited government?
I can't think of any. ;-)
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
-- H.L. Mencken
This essay sounded strangley like Ayn Rand, and then when I got to the quote, I was right. I also just read Atlas Shrugged like a week ago. GREAT BOOK!
How many voters do you know who don't believe in government?
How many voters do you know who don't believe in limited government?
Once again, I can't think of any. ;-)
What about me? Wait, I'm not old enough to vote quite yet...
I'm a bit dense and am not really sure where you are going with this but as to:
"How many voters do you know who don't believe in limited government? "
I would guess that maybe 1% of those eligible to vote actually know what limited govt means.
The central theme is outstanding. I could have done with less romance.
You should read Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness".
Neither is acceptable. Either give us our pudding untainted, or we will replace you with someone who can.
Well, I would guess that just about every one of them believes like you do - that they know what limited government means.
And, I just think that it's important to occasionally remind myself how much we all have in common. We nearly all agree in government, that it should perform certain functions and we nearly all agree that government should be limited, that that it shouldn't perform other functions.
When we do disagree, we disagree about what functions we would like to see government perform and what functions we do not want to see government to perfom. When those differences are peaceably resolved, they are usually resolved by compromise. ;-)
The definition of limited govt in the US is not some floating abstraction. It is clearly spelled out by the Constitution.
The problem is not making compromises on Constitutional issues. The problem is that the Constitution itself has been compromised down to it's foundation.
I would guess that maybe 1% of those eligible to vote actually know what limited govt means.
I would say that the majority of the population favors expansion of any program or service that benefits them and reduction of any program or service that does not benefit them. For example, the biggest welfare handout in this country is Medicare and the second is Social Security. An 85-year-old racking up big medical bills may look down her nose at welfare recipients, but does not consider herself a welfare recipient. After all, she and her late husband "paid" into SS, even if what they and their employers paid was exhausted a long time ago.
The problem is not making compromises on Constitutional issues. The problem is that the Constitution itself has been compromised down to it's foundation.
Our Constitution was not designed to be a prescription for the proper role of government in general. As originally drafted, it pertained almost exclusively to the role of only one level of government - the Federal government. It was drafted by a process that included extensive debate and many, many compromises. It also included the provisions for amendment that invited further debates, further compromises, and change.
The continuing willingness of most of us to publicly negotiate, debate, compromise, persuade (and be persuaded) is what keeps this system moving forward. Considering the options, I think it's a pretty good system. ;-)
Isn’t abdicating the power of retaliatory use of force a “compromise of individual rights”? After all I can’t legally beat up the guy that stole my silverware.
So we authorize governments to be the sole arbitrator of who’s been wronged and what their punishment should be. What would be the alternative? Some anacho-capitalist vision of everyone with their own private armies extracting justice. That’s not what Ayn Rand promoted. So didn’t she promote “compromise between freedom and government controls”?
Abdicate is a strong word. I believe 'delegate' is more appropriate in this case. Govt is "society's agency of arrest and restraint". However, the Constitution did not remove your right to self defense.
The fact that laws have been created which punish honest people who defend their lives and property when govt agents are not around is a different story entirely.
The Constitution does not deny the right of self defense. Bad "law" does.
An-caps believe in no govt and private law enforcement based entirely on voluntary association. Rand was a minarchist and believed in limited govt.
True enough and its adoption did involve extensive debate and it contains an ammendment provision. In an ideal world the amendments following the BOR would not violate the Constitution and BOR.
Let me ask you relating to the central point of the essay - do you have any principles on which you are unwilling to compromise? If so what are they?
You talk about "moving forward" (an abuse of the language by the way) via compromise. The majority of federal laws passed since FDR's reign are un-Constitutional. The fedgov passes a lot of laws and regulations. Do you count that as progress when in most cases liberty is reduced and taxes go up?
I think that I no more ‘ delegate’ the authority to use retaliatory force than I ‘contribute’ to the IRS. Both imply that I was free to make the decision. But long before most people decided either were a good idea, they were forced to abdicate that decision to the democratic process and government.
Retaliatory force picks up where self defense stops. We have the right to shoot an intruder, but not after following him home.
Rand was in favor of that, and I don’t see anything unique that separates that abdication of freedom from another that’s just a little more (or less) essential or controversial. And if that’s true, then it looks like a compromise to me.
I’m not trying to do a “gotcha” or attack Rand or Objectivism. I’m in dept to her for my way of thinking. But I think that her philosophy has a few “weak” spots like this that prevents it from being the best one for me.
I have yet to find a philosophy without weak spots.
The conundrums -
(1) You and I did not vote on the Constitution but there it is. Of course if states were still sovereign maybe we could move to a state with a climate more to our liking. As it is now there ain't no place to run, ain't no place to hide - federal uniformity coast to coast. And secession? Abe Lincoln deleted that option.
(2) Minarchy - the Constitution was being violated almost before the ink was dry. Why? because men have weaknesses, greed and powerlust mostly therefore limited govt is doomed to fail eventually. It is a natural progression.
(3) An-cap - the first an-cap contracts would be violated almost before the ink was dry. Why? because men have weaknesses, greed and powerlust mostly therefore an-cap is doomed to fail eventually. It is a natural progression.
Conclusion - We are well and truly screwed. I am starting to believe Claire Wolfe has the right idea. Hunker down, educate you children, be as self sufficent as possible, maintain a low profile and wait for the Leviathan to collapse of it's own weight. Then come out and start over again. Maybe posterity would have 100 years or so of decent life before it went to hell in a bucket again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.