Replies

Agree - very, very good article - last two paragaraphs are the bottom line:

"A prerequisite for any civilized endeavor -- be it a game or government -- is the necessary degree of civility on the part of those involved. Barring this, the wise move is to walk away and, in no uncertain terms, serve notice that you won't play until there is agreement to follow the rules. And if your opponents are so intent on domination that they follow you outside the ring to fight, then you know it's a back-alley brawl and proceed accordingly. Remember that when people will yield to neither reason nor law, there is only one thing left that can make them yield.

What we often forget when preaching constitutionalism is that the principle is conditional. As our second president John Adams explained, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." "Moral and religious" describe neither the leftists controlling our federal government nor those voting them into power. So love it though we may, our constitution is no more suited to much of modern America than it is to the Taliban. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we'll free ourselves from the shackles of the left's selective law just as it long ago freed itself from the guide rails of all law."

And if your opponents are so intent on domination that they follow you outside the ring to fight, then you know it's a back-alley brawl and proceed accordingly.

I favor a slight variation on the Golden Rule: treat others slightly better than they deserve, but only slightly. Treating people too much better than they deserve is apt to be more harmful than treating them worse. Unfortunately, the situations in which it is easiest to treat people much better than they deserve are also often the situations where it is the most harmful. Further, I think leftists are oblivious to even the possibility that treating people too well might be harmful.