I can't tell how you intend to apply that concept to form an actual argument. It seems like you're just grasping at any straw that might justify continuing to support this anti-American neofascist movement, even as the plain reality keeps on revealing itself.
So you were merely rephrasing the same "both sides" false dichotomy in terms of yet another abstract concept, to continue rationalizing your support for fascism? If the system of autocratic authoritarianism has merit on its own, then why the need to continually sugar coat it?
At least Yarvin had the guts to advocate for autocracy directly (old Yarvin, that is. before he got corrupted by the taste of power).
Why do you keep trying to avoid responsibility for what you are directly supporting by trying to blame this "other side" ? It's pathetic.
From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now. If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is.
> From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now.
"Individual rights" is the tail on the constitution's "democratic republic" dog. It's just as bad when the public's right to regulate individual conduct is incorrectly limited in service of "individual rights," as when individual rights are incorrectly limited in service of expanding government power.
> If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is.
The other side is in power, insofar as we are living with 60 years of precedents based on "emanations from penumbras." And about 30 years before that sanctioning an unconstitutional administrative state. If we are playing Calvinball, why should I be upset that the government isn't adopting a textualist-originalist view of the suspension clause?
