In modern politics, compromise is widely regarded as a virtue. “Reaching across the aisle”–working with one’s political opponents, is seen as the paradigm of leadership. But compromise is neither a virtue nor leadership. It is moral cowardice.
In any compromise between good and evil, only the evil will win. For example, let us say that a proposal is put forth to seize all 401k plans. The owners of those plans would obviously be opposed. What compromise is possible? If the owners agree to surrender any amount of their savings, they have abandoned the principle that those savings are rightfully theirs. The only issue up for debate is how much will be seized–today.
Many believe that compromise will help avert the worst possible outcome. But any relief gained is only temporary. If you compromise and surrender half of your wealth today, what will you say when the thieves return in the future–and they will–demanding half of what remains? You have agreed that a portion of your property can be seized. If you argue that they are going “too far,” the thieves will claim that they aren’t going far enough. After all, they wanted to take all of your savings, but they were gracious and allowed you to keep some of your property.
If you think that this example is absurd, consider the history of virtually any policy issue. From education to health care, from land-use regulations to environmentalism, each is a story of compromise and expanding government controls.
A principle with exceptions is not a principle. It is a loose guideline that will be abandoned when it is convenient. If property rights can be violated sometimes, then we have abandoned the principle. And then we can only bicker over when our rights can be violated.