Friday, May 4, 2018

The Compromise Canard

     There are people who do many things well. I’m not one of them. But I do notice patterns reliably.

     Remember this clever little cartoon?

     There’s a wealth of information in that modest graphic. Yes, the tactics of the gun controllers have changed over the years. Once they lamented that we Second Amendment types “don’t care about the safety of children.” Today they accuse us of actively wanting people to die. (This, from persons who treat abortion as a sacrament and venerate socialized medicine, which blatantly kills people in the name of “economy.” It is to laugh...hollowly, and with many a tear.)

     I once had a lapel button that said:

Let’s Compromise.
Let’s talk it out like reasonable people,
Then do it my way.

     That is the highest-precision encapsulation of the Left’s attitude, toward guns and much else, that I’ve ever seen. Hearken to The Writer In Black:

     On Facebook, someone was claiming they represented a large “middle ground” that wanted “cooperation” on gun laws.

     “We want cooperation” he said. The problem is, every time people say “we just want this reasonable restriction, this ‘common sense gun control’. That’s it. No more.” They lied. Every. Damn. Time. The ink wasn’t even dry on their “compromise” before they were calling it a “good first step.” Doesn’t matter how many steps went before, it was always a “good first step” and a springboard to yet more.

     We have learned that “cooperation” is to give them a little bit more than they have now for any given now. And once they get it? That becomes the new “now” from which they demand “a little bit more.”

     You can’t cooperate with people like that. You can’t compromise with them. At some point you either have to say “no more” or accept the eventual total loss of your rights.

     Just like the cartoon, eh what? But our tale doesn’t end there. Were that the case, there’d be no point to my writing these interminable tirades.

     The Left’s strategic method is and has always been attacking principles under a guise of “compromise.” A principle, once “holed,” cannot be maintained. Take the one illustrated in the previous segment: Individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Once firearms rights proponents had been persuaded to accept the nebulous rationale of “safety” as a premise of equal stature, the Left had won the game, even if checkmate remained fifty or sixty moves away.

     If you can see how that works, Gentle Reader, you could skip the rest of this screed with no loss. If you can’t, I’m not sure how to bring it home to you.

     A principle is a rule of right action. It divides the universe of possible actions into two absolutely separate and distinct zones: one labeled You May, the other labeled You Must Not, Regardless Of Your Reason. Political principles involve the rights of individuals and their voluntary associations.

     Take the right to life as another example of how the Left works. If you have a right to your life – i.e., a right not to be killed, except as the penalty for murdering another – then you have a right to pursue those goods and services you believe will assist you in maintaining your life. Moreover, no one may justly obstruct your pursuit by force. What, then, are we to think of schemes in which the State can tell you what medical treatments you may and may not access? What, then, are we to think of schemes in which the State can decree that you may not leave the country for the treatment you desire? What, then, are we to think of the story of Alfie Evans?

     Yet billions of persons have accepted socialized medicine systems that award the State plenipotentiary power over such things: in effect, the power of life and death over innocent citizens and subjects. The Left succeeded in getting those billions to accept those systems in the name of “efficiency” (don’t laugh), or “compassion” (please don’t laugh), or “universal health care” (stop it, you’ll hurt yourself). They persuaded their intended victims to place “efficiency,” “compassion,” or what have you as a premise of equal significance to the right to life.

     Once the principle had been punctured, the Left knew it had won.

     I and others have maintained for some time that those who steer the Left have never been interested in “safety,” or “efficiency,” or whatever their Shibboleth of the Month might be. They want total power, unbounded in scope and unlimited in application. That requires the subjugation of those under their heel...and they mean for all of us to be under their heel.

     To achieve that end, the Left must undermine and ultimately destroy any principle that stands in its way. The right to life; the right to do as you please with your peacefully acquired property; the right to express your opinion without fear of punishment...all these must be broken. Their master technique for working their wiles upon free societies is “compromise.”

     You cannot compromise with those who intend your subjugation or destruction. Verbum sat sapienti.


Pascal said...

I'm often labeled an extremist because I propound unsavory scenarios to demonstrate with what "moderate" voices are willing to compromise.

My favorite: Radical asks for your life and some moderates demands that you be reasonable and offer up you pinky.

Thus the "moderates" in even less extreme an instance are best presumed to be wolves in sheep's clothing, it is they who should be labeled with pejoratives, not you.

I leave it to you Fran to see if you can find an adequate bridge of this extreme idea to a more acceptable one so that useful idiot "moderates" will shun that word much as Progs today deny the word liberal (even if useful idiot libs haven't gotten the message yet.)

Chuck said...

"...The Left succeeded in getting those billions to accept those systems in the name of “efficiency” (don’t laugh), or “compassion” (please don’t laugh), or “universal health care” (stop it, you’ll hurt yourself)..."

You left out the first step that punctured the individual right - "effectiveness" as decided by the FDA bureaucracy.

Joseph said...

One problem with the type of rhetoric is that it makes the Left bolder. They pride themselves on being "on the right side of history" and stories of past victories bolsters that opinion. Pointing out their past failures may discourage them.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Who cares if it "makes the Left bolder" -- ? In fact, I'd argue that that's exactly what we want: for the Left to drop its facade of "reasonableness" and "compromise," and show the nation what it really wants and will drive to get.

When the Left is overt about its agenda, it loses. So force it into the open where it can't hide its ultimate aims.

Reg T said...

Since you specifically mentioned NFA in '34 and the GCA in '68, allow me to inform those reading here that the NRA has been busy compromising our rights away since before 1934.

In the August 1968 American Rifleman, the NRA wrote about the fact that they had a hand in writing the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934 AND the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 1968. They explained it away, stating that they wanted to impress on their detractors that the NRA could be "reasonable" and would compromise, instead of insisting on "getting their own way" (i.e., instead of actually fighting for their members' Second Amendment rights).

I quit the NRA after being a member for over twenty years when the Lautenberg Amendment was passed into law, and the NRA never informed us members that it was happening. The Act was passed before most of us knew it was even being considered, let alone voted on and signed into law.

As a LIfe Member of GOA (Gun Owners of America), I will tell you there are a lot of things the NRA does that do _not_ benefit their members, let alone the rest of us who support 2A. Nonetheless, they keep collecting dues, and hit their members frequently with tales of bills being considered, asking for additional donations so they can "fight" the bills. On a number of occasions, I discovered that the gun control bill they were scaring their members with had died in committee and been dropped, _months_ before they sent out their fund-raising letters.