It does a DISSERVICE to humanity to be too polite to such people. If someone is advocating mass extortion, and feels perfectly comfortable doing so, and no one ever condemns the immorality of their position, why should they ever reconsider?
Trying to politely "get along" with someone who is condoning violent aggression--including against YOU--is fairly stupid, not to mention counter-productive. "Hey, let's agree to disagree. Your opinion that I should be forcibly robbed, and caged if I resist, is equally valid to my opinion that neither of us should be robbed." Um, no. It isn't. Statists SHOULD be made to feel as much guilt and shame as possible, because they are advocating something destructive and immoral. If someone was advocating mass murder, would you be all polite and civil to them, and talk as if their position is acceptable? I hope not.
Just as people condoning chattel slavery SHOULD have been insulted and condemned as often as possible, so should those who advocate the widespread use of violence to fund whatever bogus "programs" and "benefits" they want their "government" god to hand out.
Not surprisingly, "Beth" was offended that I had the gall to point out the blatant immorality of what she condones, as well as the profound intellectual dishonesty and cowardice she displays when she won't even ADMIT what she advocates. She called my comments "ugly" and "hostile," because I said it's bad for her to push for the coercive robbery of tens of millions of people. If you ask me, if someone is NOT "hostile" against the advocacy of mass violence, but is gentle with the cheerleaders of oppression, that is not doing anyone a favor... except tyrants.