Here’s how Ron and Rand responed when Panderson Pooper asked them the same thing…
I would argue something similar. Why can’t we just “compromise” on slavery and have only some blacks/women/children be slaves? Or better yet, let’s say me and my friends want everyone to be our slaves. We can compromise and have just women and children be the slaves. How’s that? (I mean, there’s more of them anyway. And they’ll tend to be weaker than us and other men. We might even let the black guys borrow them sometime.)
Oh you have a problem with that? What the hell is wrong with you? Why can’t we just compromise? Meet me in the middle. You’re just against everything. That’s all you want to do is say “no no no” to everything so nothing ever gets done. I’m willing to meet you halfway. You’re the one who’s unwilling to just come to the table, set aside our differences, and make a deal. I’m as flexible as a Romanian gymnast. I can bend on this. But you aren’t even willing to play ball. You’re just being a whiny jerky jerk.
There’s a ton of ways you can illustrate the idiocy of insisting on “compromise”. All you have to do is pose a situation where someone wants something that the person you’re talking to is unwilling to “compromise” on. It’s basically a form of reductio. The way they insist on compromise as if it’s a virtue, and argue for it for its own sake, all you have to do is illustrate a situation where even they would agree it’s not a virtue, and you’ve shocked their worldview a little bit. Then when they try to backtrack and make the predictable “well that’s different” argument, the door is open for you to explain why it’s not…in both situations you see an unacceptable outcome. (In fact in their case, they’re likely arguing for something that’s going to get more people killed. You’re just arguing for slaves.)
You get to explain how war, and theft, and murder, and fraud, may be acceptable to them, but not to you. You’re not delusional that the world will ever be completely rid of all those things, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to stop working toward that direction. (Would they argue that just because we’ll never prevent all crime or even catch all criminals that we should get rid of all security forces?) You don’t think your prescription will create Nirvana on Earth, but you do understand that their’s will take us farther away from it…that it will lead in a direction that is the opposite of where most everyone wants to go.
We want to go in completely opposite directions. They want more statism, we want less. And they’re whining about you refusing to “compromise” on their proposal of more statism. As in, they want government in every sector of your life. But they’re willing to “compromise” on just shoving it more into this sector or that sector (for now). Why can’t they “compromise” with your proposal of less? I want no government, but I’ll compromise on this bill and just cut $1 Trillion. How’s that? No good? Well why not? I really want to cut $2 Trillion! I’m dropping it by HALF! You won’t even meet me halfway?! I’m willing to compromise here! You’re just being stubborn and refusing to compromise because you’re either partisan or bitter, or both. Jerk.
In my view — being against murder and theft and such — “compromising” on just how many more people will be bombed to hell (1 million or 10 million? Compromise and just say 5 million), or just how many more people will be forced into poverty (20 million or 40 million? Compromise and just say 30 million) is not a good thing.
The key is to get them to see how the motion has always been one sided. The Democrats may may not get as much statism as they argue for, but in the end the Republicans go along in the same direction and we end up with more government than we had before. So just because the spending increases by $300 billion and not $900 billion, that doesn’t mean any actual “compromise” has taken place. (At least not between the statists and people who actually want to shrink government .)
This is because historically Republicans really don’t want to cut government. They just aren’t as zealous about growing it as Democrats. So you find compromise actually does take place. Republicans want to increase spending in the military industrial complex and warfare state, and Dems want to increase the scientific industrial complex and the welfare state. So they “compromise” and spend on both. That’s an actual example of compromise because both sides want to move in the same direction…they just differ on how much and where. But the point is there actually is a middle ground between what they both want, and it is some amount of increased government. So you actually see compromise taking place all the time. (Just as Ron Paul points out.)
If I want to cut and you want to increase, the only possible “middle ground” would be static spending. (But even then one might argue it’s not middle ground, as you probably want zero government…whereas even they won’t argue for 100% government. So really the middle ground should be a cut, of some amount.)
This is why Ron Paul is so brilliant for not only calling this out, but also for showing how progress can be made by finding grounds that you actually do agree on and forming coalitions. Obviously he has little in common with, say, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders…but he’s been able to work with him pushing audit-the-Fed legislation. Same thing with Barney Frank. The guy’s an insane statist, but he’s in favor of legalizing marijuana and ending the wars (or at least cutting back on them.) So you see the odd combination of Ron Paul and the Frankfurter.
So the issue with compromise is, all parties have to want to at least move in the same direction. Otherwise, the only “fair” outcome from a logical standpoint is a stalemate.
