So what if we have incompatible and irreconcilable worldviews on our existence… can’t we still get along?

By the Lieutenant Colonel

I am troubled by those that are adamant about separating undesirable “beliefs” from the individuals that espouse them in the wishful endeavor to avoid physical confrontation at all cost.  I decided to write on this subject after reading this closing statement from a “conservative” blog article:

“They grasped the seriousness of their disagreement and found ways to hate the other side’s ideas without hating the individuals on the other side.  We can do the same with the political, religious, and secular Left in 2010.”  [1]

The “we can agree to disagree” and still be friends view is reasonable and admirable when the disagreement is over some benign “like or dislike” such as; I think that painting is beautiful, you think it is ugly.  Or, I’m a Steelers fan and you’re a Ravens fan.  Rational humans may have spirited discourse on their preferences, but will not come to blows over such things.  (Please note I said rational)

But when a disagreement is over irreconcilable and incompatible philosophies with a “my way or your way” outcome pertaining to one’s physical and mental state of existence in this world, a fight to determine which outcome prevails is inevitable unless there is a willingness by one party to acquiesce and submit.  Such disagreements sometimes smolder for a period as opponents struggle to coexistence, but they inevitably explode into conflict as opponents either employ self-defense or assert dominance to obtain resolution.  Such conflicts span human history. 

The preeminent irreconcilable struggle of human coexistence is between the social order boundaries of anarchy and tyranny.  Between these extremes are those that believe in individual liberty (God given inalienable rights) and personal property under a system of equal opportunity and justice under law and those that believe in statist collectivism and community property under a system of equal outcome and social justice.  One seeks maximum self determination and limited governance, the other, a utopian collective governed by a benevolent authoritarian system.  These views are diametrically opposed.  Whenever liberty triumphs statist collectivist coercions, the result is preservation of individual freedom, but whenever the statist collective triumphs, it is at the expense of liberty--and those that don’t want to acquiesce are forced into submission, incarcerated, or eliminated.

So, when it comes to my view on individuals or groups whose beliefs impose conditions that force me down “the road to serfdom” (With best intents for our wellbeing of course [2]), I can’t help but hold disdain for them.  They are a threat to my liberty, and therefore an enemy… how can I feign friendship or even just passively ignore them when they vigorously encroach upon me?  Then what is one to do, dispatch them…“the blood of tyrants”, well no!  (More on this in a follow-on article)  That is, if the defense of liberty is vigilant and uncompromising [3] while the fight can be bloodless as wisely stated by Winston Churchill…

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.  There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Notes:

[1] R.J. Moeller (8 April 2010).  The Drama of Our Time, A Voice in the Wilderness-In Defense of “Mere Conservatism”, http://rjmoeller.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August (1994).  The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press

British writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[3] How can you compromise liberty?  You can’t… a point well explained by Buck Stienke in this post on Patriotpost.com, 6 Dec 2011.  “Colin Powell is wrong (about compromise with progressives in Congress) for a simple reason.  Tea Party unwillingness to compromise with a fundamentally un-American policy (Socialism) is no vice.  Compare it to a rapist's desire to have unlimited sex with your wife or child.  At what point would a "compromise" with the rapist's demand satisfy you?  A weekend?  A night?  How about only 30 minutes?  As I suspected, your unwillingness to compromise is no surprise.  Principles must be defended, even if the defense is not "civil".

[4] Winston Churchill (1948).  The Gathering Storm, p. 348, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH)