Getting Along: Response to Dignan

Okay, I was wrong: I do have an entry to post. Dignan recently published an entry titled, "Agreeing to Disagree," and below is a copy of my response:

Actually, the main problem stems from the size of the state. Because government has taken on an increasingly large (and intrusive) role in our lives, those on opposite sides of political debates have a lot more at stake. It's one thing to disagree with someone who has no real way to coerce you. However, with elections serving merely as cover for political actors looking to gain power over others, disagreements become more materially meaningful. If A and B disagree on a particular issue, and A gains political power, then he/she can wreak havoc on B's life (e.g., by forcing B to fund projects that he/she finds objectionable).

The only solution is to lessen the power of the state. Thus, A's disagreement with B would remain rhetorical and not manifest itself materially.

Finally, I disagree with Public Theologian's critique of separatism. True social and political freedom comes from the ability to exit, especially from situations or organizations that compromise our core beliefs. While Christians should be unified, the sad reality is that our sin will continue to block that ideal until the Second Coming. Thus, 'tis better to allow easy exit — otherwise, we would be left with tyranny, resulting in civil/religious war.