Right, Wrong, and Compromise

Once in while I come across the argument that politics is just a clash between two different viewpoints, that if we could all just recognize that for what it is we could solve all of our problems. Sound familiar? A classic political excuse for not getting anything done (or getting the wrong things done) is "it's those darn [Republicans/Democrats] - they won't compromise on anything!"

The implication here is that the compromise is the preferable outcome, but if anyone truly believes he is right on an issue - and the other side is wrong - he can't be expected to compromise. Ask a devout Christian to compromise with Atheism - how does that make sense?

Congressmen and Senators invented the illusion of compromise by haggling over the wrong issues. For example, they might argue about how much of a man's personal income should be taken for the benefit of another. That is an argument that can be compromised anywhere between 100% and 0%. Imagine the possibilities! However, the real issue is: should the government be in the business of redistributing income? (And what gives it that right, what can justify taking that liberty from the people?)

If one side believes it's wrong for the government to take from some and give to others, then they lose that debate as soon as they concede to start arguing over how much. Merely entering into that discussion automatically compromises and effectively sacrifices their core principles. It's a slippery slope from that point. That's why, if this were 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,' compromise would be the Ugly.

When the government ceases to consider whether it has the right to carry out a particular course of action, we - the people - forfeit our rights. That is how the government grows beyond previously imaginable. That is how we got the monstrosity we have now. Thanks a lot, compromise.

But it's not just compromise. If an issue like that were presented as it really is, it would be much too difficult. Before the issue is ready for compromise, it needs a strong emotional appeal. Instead of being a question of rights and the implications of expanding federal power, it becomes a plead of intentions. The justification for taking a course of action becomes: because we care. Because, how could we not care?

I think this charade works so well because people do care. Although I couldn't say what it's like to be inside someone else's head, it certainly makes me sad to see someone sleeping on the ground in the subway. I'm going to go out on a limb here: most people don't like to see others truly suffering.

And so, armed with these incredibly good and noble intentions and feelings, our representatives respond the way I would expect a normal human being to respond: what can I do to help? But there's a problem with that. It's one thing to ask what you can do to help another. It's quite another to ask what you can do to help - with other people's money.

Although "helping out my fellow man" is a commendable reason for an individual to give to charity or spend a day at the soup kitchen, as the justification for government intervention it is just an abuse of power.

Let me explain that. On a personal level, I might decide to donate to the poor. The I might become dissatisfied that, as just one person, I can't make much of an impact. So, I devise a plan to take money from the rest of the nation, with or without their consent. It's okay because I'd be doing it for a noble cause, because I care and think other people should care, too.

That might sound preposterous, because it is. In a civilized society, it would be called stealing. Think about it for a moment though. I don't have the right to forcefully take money from other people for any purpose, whether my intention is to cure cancer or to speculate wildly in pork belly futures. It doesn't matter - in a civilized society, you can't steal from other people and get away with it, so I'd go to jail.

Here's my point: If the government is a delegation of the rights of its citizens, then how does it get the right to redistribute income? No citizen has the right to take property from others, so how can he delegate that right to someone else? He can't. But the problem inherent in legislative bodies is that they can easily take the power to do whatever they can justify on a "moral" basis, and rights become more like... guidelines. (If not merely an afterthought).

They can look upon the natural outcomes symptomatic of people being different from each other and decide they can do something to fix it. They have the desire. They have the power. They have the "moral" high ground. Now the guy who doesn't agree looks like a jerk if he stands firm with his principles. BAM - Compromise.

And the rest, of course, is history.