So imagine yourself on a mostly-deserted island, and once upon a time, you were given responsibility over 100 other people. Sometime in the past, some other group of people came, kidnapped, and murdered 50 of those people; you tried to fight them, but they were just too strong. In the process of the fight, that other group makes it abundantly clear that they want to kill all of you, and only did not do so because they were driven away.
Over time, however, you have developed better tools, and more equipped to combat that other group, who, through infighting, has diminished in numbers as well.
One day, a member of the other group shows up at your camp. This groveling, sniveling, spineless excuse of a human obsequiously explains that the other group still wants to kill all of you, but they would “settle” for simply killing 25 of you. That, in their opinion, is the “reasonable, common sense” solution to the stand-off, since it is halfway between what you want and what they want. This pathetic, unctuous toady throws around words like “cooperation” and “promises” and “we’re right” and “you’re wrong” and “everybody wins”, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the little creep is only interested in achieving his murderous groups’ goals of eventually killing you all, even if they have to accomplish it piecemeal.
So what do you do? Do you give the scumbag 25 of your people, content in the knowledge that their deaths will guarantee the other group will leave you alone… until they want another half, and another half, and… Or do you tell the disgusting rat to take a hike, with a firm foot on his ass if he does not get the message?
Now, why should we treat the rights of human beings any differently than we treat their lives? After all, it is through those rights that we protect our freedoms, our liberties, and our lives, and it is through the surrender of those rights that all of those can – and will – be lost.
How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” when it comes to freedom and slavery? How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” between liberty and totalitarianism? How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” between dead and alive?
It is not, it never was, and it never will be.
Anyone who would try to shame you for not being willing to give up even a fraction of your rights is just as contemptibly despicable as that hypothetical murderer – the only difference between them is the latter has a stronger stomach.
Simple Answer, The Ancient Romans (The other democratic republic) would approve.
Send the messenger back in pieces, on his shield, but without coin. The modern translation… Remove him from office respectfully (non violently) , and leave him to GOD. That is a strong enough message to the rest of them. If it isn’t then let them come and try to take half. Then there can be a literal translation of the above.
Tac
Mot meeting in the middle generally gets you accused of being nuts/an extremist/anti-feminist/etc. It’s mostly “progressive” people that want to meet in the middle, and they throw fits and call you names when you stand your ground. And I’d like to add that meeting in the middle includes having heartfelt sympathy and empathy for others, which I lack.
Might explain why my first reaction to having responsibility over 100 people was to make them dance.
It’s like a much more intense, darker version of something LawDog posted here: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
His was about cake…not so much with the people getting killed…
Some good responses to hurl at the anti-rights crowd regarding “compromise” on our rights:
1) “Nuts!” – response from the U.S. Bastogne commander
2) “Never again!” – on behalf of all of those murdered by leftists (e.g. Nazis)
3) “Molon Labe!” – Come an take them (could involve a fatal miscalculation)
4) “Go to hell!” – a personal favorite and I might insert derogative expletives, too
Just remember. A mugger NEVER robs you of half of your money.
@ Tac: That would be pretty much my response as well, and when it comes to elected representatives, sending them back to their respective Districts devoid of title or public paycheck is definitely the appropriate response.
When it comes to average anti-rights cultists, though, pointing, laughing, and ridiculing is just as acceptable.
@ the Dude: The problem with “meeting in the middle” is where is that line drawn for rapists, murderers, muggers, and assaulters? And given that the anti-rights cultists are actively aiding and abetting those self-same rapists, murderers, muggers, and assaulters, compromising with them is logically equivalent to compromising with the criminals themselves… just by proxy.
And I shall not be one to compromise with either of those sort, no matter what nonsense names they might throw at me.
@ Cormac: Yeah, I will not lie that I was significantly inspired by LawDog’s writings, but I wrote it in the terms I did for exactly the reason you mention – the visceral reaction of those reading it
.
@ Braden Lynch: I rather liked that, “Of course not, you dozy git,” authored by a subject of once-Great Britain.
Head. Pike. Some assembly required.
If only things were as simple as a thought experiment.
@ Braden Lynch:
My preferred response to those who demand that I compromise my inherent right to self-defense is as follows:
“You are cordially invited to autofornicate.”
I prefer this wording to its more-abrupt equivalent, mainly because it takes the addressee a bit of time to work out what I mean; this gives me the pleasure of seeing realization slowly dawn on his/her/its face. >;-)
@ RobertM: Well, in my experience, the point of thought experiments is less to find an absolute solution, and more to make people actually think. Seems that comes in short supply these days…
@ AuricTech: And it certainly sounds a fair bit more cultured than its monosyllabic cousin
.