Consistency does not always harass me in my political thought. I do not need to be Kantian any longer, either borrowing my ethics from others or, God forbid, positing that my behaviors should be taken as precedent. Moral nihilism is freeing, in this sense. Things can simply be. I do not need to say that I am justified. I do not need to pretend that I am right.
But I do like to unleash the demon of consistency on the should-ers, the fucks who have--in the form of priests and scribes and kings and lawyers and fathers and matriarchs and orangutan doctors--said that certain things should be and certain things should not.
Political should-ers are particularly annoying to me. I have a simple rule for them. I think that they should design worlds in which they inhabit the weakest roles and lowest positions. That, simply and elegantly, fixes all of political philosophy.
Hammurabi would have to consider which senses he would like to abandon.
Moses might ask if war prisoners' genitals should be taken for trophies.
Mohammad might settle for being first husband of his wealthy wife.
Marx would have to listen to other people (this might constitute a living hell for him).
And most amusingly, I imagine an adolescent Thomas Jefferson struggling to deal with the advances of his 41-year-old owner. How romantic.