I have started reading an account of the war in Vietnam, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War". So far, an interesting read.
It strikes me as particularly relevant at this time as we look at agendas and tactics in this country. The author of this book writes about the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, Diem:
The idea of having free elections, or making any accommodations, with Communists (whose method was terrorism, and whose aim was tyranny) was, Diem believed, an absurdity.
So first off, let's admit... the writing in this book would have benefitted from an editor. The sentence has 26 words, 4 commas, and one parenthetical. I would have made this two sentences with half as many commas and no parentheses.
However, in spite of the author's terrible writing, a suspicion against people who use tactics of terror and whose aim is tyranny is completely valid. One does not "make accommodation" with such people any more than one "splits the check down the middle" with a single male "friend" who likes to buy a few bottles of wine for the entire table.
When your ends are at odds, you do not cooperate and you do not compromise. There are two viable options: "Live and let live" or War. Anything in between is a sacrifice of the self-sufficient, the honest, the virtuous in favor of the the parasite, the liar, and the vicious.
Where does the compromise lie between Bob, who believes in his right to live for his own sake, and his neighbor who believes Bob's earnings belong to the community and should be distributed as such?
We, who believe in voluntary social interaction, are obligated to reject compromise on fundamental principles. We do not make accommodations with such people. We don't split the check with them.