That is a fast way to lose as you struggle for the reigns of power that you will be subverted by.
The point is to burn the reigns so no one gets to use them at all.
It's like having an entirely disarmed society, and claiming you want to seize control over the military. Congratulations, you will end up in the same exact place a few decades later, and everything you accomplished will be for nothing. The point is to end the disarmament.
I want their groomer shit, as an example, erased. It's not enough to just have the freedom to send your kid to a non-groomer schools. I don't want other schools promoting that shit either. We've been doing things your way for decades (the old "who cares what they do in their bedroom" stance). Look where that got us.
I'm also not a fool. I obviously see the utility in blunting the power of institutions like this when our enemies control them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't weaponize them while we have the chance.
Me too, but we can't always get what we want. I think it's a misreading to interpret his comment as "who cares what they do in their bedroom". He's talking about a different form of opinionated governance that enforces distribution of power. People tend to express a more libertine, apathetic attitude when it's all out of their hands anyway. With more power and responsibility in the hands of people locally there would be less of that thinking.
That is a fast way to lose as you struggle for the reigns of power that you will be subverted by.
The point is to burn the reigns so no one gets to use them at all.
It's like having an entirely disarmed society, and claiming you want to seize control over the military. Congratulations, you will end up in the same exact place a few decades later, and everything you accomplished will be for nothing. The point is to end the disarmament.
I want their groomer shit, as an example, erased. It's not enough to just have the freedom to send your kid to a non-groomer schools. I don't want other schools promoting that shit either. We've been doing things your way for decades (the old "who cares what they do in their bedroom" stance). Look where that got us.
I'm also not a fool. I obviously see the utility in blunting the power of institutions like this when our enemies control them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't weaponize them while we have the chance.
Me too, but we can't always get what we want. I think it's a misreading to interpret his comment as "who cares what they do in their bedroom". He's talking about a different form of opinionated governance that enforces distribution of power. People tend to express a more libertine, apathetic attitude when it's all out of their hands anyway. With more power and responsibility in the hands of people locally there would be less of that thinking.