Compromise

What is the relationship between moderation and compromise? This is one of the most misunderstood and perplexing moral dilemmas to arise.

Let us start with definitions. Moderation, simply conceived of, is the middle course between too polar action possibilities. Should one drink too much alcohol or too little alcohol? If one decides to binge drink or be an alcoholic, that is excessive or immoral drinking. If one decides to drink moderately or not at all, that is morally acceptable.

If one decides to drink not at all, but to pull a Carrie Nation and attack those that drink at all, using legal sanction, social ostracism and herd pressure to attack any drinker, even the moderate ones, then this intolerant (Fanaticism is evil, and so are its enforcing mechanisms--legal sanction, intolerance, depriving others of free choice and coercive social and even physical threats if drinkers do not submit and obey teetotalers.) Remember fanaticism interprets using bad means to a good end--forcing others not to drink for the sake of societal safety and health away from Demon Rum. Bad means or fanatical coercion always corrupts the good end, so bad or coercive means can never be used to advance the cause of good. People must drink moderately or abstain from drinking of their own free will. Fanatical means do not support a good end but undermine it. Only good means will empower the idealist and his potential converts to reach the good end sought.

What is fanaticism? The true believer has no self, his whole life, his entire identity, his religion, his cause, his reason for existing and being are all wrapped up in and in service of his holy/unholy sacred/secular cause or mission. He and other true believers, inside the movement, are God's chosen people, that sanctioned and saved elite, superior to all other people on earth. All must join there cause or perish. Those inside are all good, all correct and all perfect; those outside the cause are all bad, all incorrect and completely imperfect. Those outside are strange and are enemies. They are subhuman. Only true believing insiders are human. Thus the ethical decency shown towards insiders cannot be shown to subhuman strangers on the outside of the cause. This ethical divide explains how totalitarian peoples justify atrocities against all outsiders, all foreigners all foes.

If moderation is our first principle, the fundamental natural law--in the middle there is virtue, then what is good or honorable compromise, and what is dishonorable or blameworthy compromise?

Should constitutional conservatives or gun rights activists like Levin or Minnesota Gun Rights compromise with Progressives or gun-grabbers on the Left? No, no compromise, not one inch.
  Am I a confused, muddled thinker or hypocrite that urges ethical moderation while fanatically opposing any incremental Progressivism or incremental gun-grabbing?

Constitutional conservatives believe that God made the world, and made natural law, out of which flows natural law and natural rights. Among these natural, unalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, happiness and the right to bear arms to defend one's own person. The Founding Fathers framed this marvelous, blessed Constitution to allow us to be governed by elected representatives, voted in with the consent of the governed. The people enjoy a natural right to bear arms which shall not be infringed upon by the State.

These rights are eternally bestowed upon the people by the Creator, and the Progressives are incrementally working to register universally all guns, all gun owners for the final aim to confiscate and disarm all citizen patriots so that they are helpless to thwart or ward off the inrushing fascist state and its goons. Hitler had strict gun control going on for the cowed Germans under the Third Reich.

Statists, socialists and gun-haters all open or masked fanatics: they immediate open aim, or their hidden, ultimate aim is to take over America, introduce Castro Communism to all Americans, a beaten-down, despairing, subjugated populace without guns to fight back against tyranny and their Marxist masters and mistresses.

We gun-bearing, freedom-loving, America-loving, God-fearing American patriots wish to Make-America-Great-Again to restore limited government, capitalism, balanced, budgets, a strong national defense, constitutional republicanism and a citizenry with lots of guns for private use and as informal or semiformal formed militias like the Swiss employ.

The socialists and gun-grabbers are fanatics. Fanaticism is evil. We will not compromise with them. We will not use force or government dictate or crowd pressure to force them to see things our way, or to obey or give lip service to our view of things. We will take up arms if they come for our guns, and we will use argumentation and political counter-pressure to back off their insidious, cruel agenda. To give in to evil people out to enslave and bring tyranny to All Americans forever is dishonorable compromise that the expedient that believe in nothing, the Independents, the RINO Republicans and Libertarians are guilty of.

Where does honorable compromise fit in? Goodness for America and all people everywhere (This is why I want the border sealed and immigration ended for now. If we can save America and convert our domestic foreigners and people of  color and a majority of educated, Leftist whites into constitutional conservatives, then we can then introduce our American Way of Life, our high civilization to the rest of the world--for them to take or leave or appropriate element of as they see fit. We are humankind's last best hope, and that is why the Progressive hate us and want our way of Life destroyed--we are directly opposed to the sickness that they want shoved down the throats of all Americans.) is to live lives as individual citizens under a federal, constitutional republic with maximum liberty to live life freely as one wishes without government interference. We cannot compromise on first principles as basic and humane as these.

Honorable compromise, for a gun-lover and constitutional conservative, consists in informing socialist, statists and gun-grabbers that there concerns will receive a full hearing. Many if not all there sensible reforms can be incorporated as long as tyranny and gun-grabbing are not being offered as reforms. If they want guns ownership reformed, let us enforce gun laws for felons and incarcerate the dangerous mentally ill. Let us teach children ethics and gun safety as guns are handled by all children in every school in America from the age of 7 to 17. Let us teach them to self-actualize. In this way we will have compromised and reached a moderate Middle: all or will have guns, without government regulation, and gun safety will be guaranteed.

For the champions of social justice and political correctness, let their justifiable concerns and needs met in civil society--not so much in government or in the work place--as liberal, honorable advocates of these causes, as rational people meet with and dialogue with constitutional conservatives to find ways to care for the demands of the Left and the Independents and the Libertarians without government fiat or gun-grabbing.

Again, bad means are fanatical or corrupting and contribute to social evil. Statism and gun-grabbing are always bad means to a noble end--to make people, fed, housed, clothed, educated and treated fairly and equally in a peaceful, free society with law and order. Statism and gun-grabbing lead to totalitarian Marxism and a suffering, oppressed population.

We gun-lovers and constitutional conservatives are moderate and ethical people. Work with us to save America and get all back on the right track.