Compromise

"Well, the players have changed but the game remains the same, and the name of the game is 'Let's Make a Deal.'"
--Jack Trainer (Working Girl)

Compromise can be defined as both sides of a negotiation 'giving something up' in order to reach an agreement. Meeting somewhere in the middle, it is often phrased.

Two weeks back Big Government politicians Washington (and their pundits) came out of the woodwork to criticize Tea Party incomers for being unwilling to compromise (some TPers wound up caving under the pressure). Compromise, the Establishment argues, is the way things get done in Washington.

Indeed.

Nearly all debates in Washington involve whether the federal government should get bigger or not. Whenever government gets bigger, freedom is lost. This is because resources are forcibly moved out of the hands of people and into the hands of the State.

Suppose, then, that every disagreement in Washington is between a group that thinks government should not get bigger (or heaven help us, smaller) and a group that thinks government should get bigger. Any compromise (i.e., meeting somewhere in the middle) necessarily means that government gets bigger. As such, more freedom is lost.

This sums up the debt deal 'compromise' last week.

As long as the federal government can marshal resources in discretionary fashion, 'compromise' in Washington equals loss of liberty.