How much anti-government rhetoric is a second order effect of the existence of compromises?
When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10.
In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted.
This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then.
So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded.
Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.
When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10.
In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted.
This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then.
So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded.
Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.