a Thinker's Glossary

A Critical Look at Compromise

"Let's compromise" is an often used phrase meant to suggest a "fair" (equitable) resolution of conflicting positions. If we assume, though, that one's position is a principle, accurately stated and is in fact provably correct, then a compromise is clearly inappropriate. Why? Consider first, that the principle is whole and complete, in and of itself. If so, then abandonment of all, or any part of its identity, extinguishes that unique identity. The principle expressed originally is no longer is the same. We say it has been comprised, become ineffective.

To perhaps see this more clearly, let us compare a principle with a number. Each number is distinct from any other. It has a precise location on the continuum of numbers, with a given representational value or utility. It cannot be another number nor can it have a different value, either wholly or in part. If it is changed (compromised) to any degree it loses its unique identity. It becomes something else. In this instance another number.

Principles share with numbers this characteristic of precise, absolute identity. Therefore, if in a reasoned argument the propositional principle, the subject of the argument, is given up to the opposition. The issue is settled. Any future argument must then be commenced from the previously established point of settlement. Where the principle was conceded by the compromise. If there is further comprise in subsequent argumentation, the original proposition becomes ever more diminished, eventually to extinction.

Suppose we consider liberty, as an example. Market solutions to governance by voluntary contract, versus stateist governance, which is forced governance by a state through ever increasing statutes and regulation. As each of these positions is contrary, we may imagine a boundary between them which cannot be crossed, without the one idea extinguishing the other.

Translating this concept into political terms, we see that each positional point on the governance by state side of the intellectual boundary, represents a varying degree of coercion; whereas on the opposite side of that boundary there is an absence of coercion. Liberty is the absence of coercion. Any compromise towards governance by state reduces the liberty stasis. If liberty is the goal then compromise is not a possibility.

Apart from "saving the world" by not compromising liberty, is there a place for compromise impersonal relationships? Yes, between a husband and wife. Here, compromise is comfortably and correctly applied; wifey suggests a proposition and hubby immediately quashes any dispute with the compromise, "yes dear,"thereby setting all well.