to me, what I mean is that the positions you would have the LP take
represent a compromise with those who would institutionalize the
non-policing of certain kinds of aggression -- such as pollution,
resource overconsumption, appropriation of ground rent, or the strong
preying on the weak.
I don't claim to be a no-compromiser in the sense of insisting that the
LP expound all the details of my school of libertarianism. However, I
do advocate "no compromise" in the sense that the LP should not
officially advocate an end state that is anathema to any particular
school of libertarianism.
What I'm pointing out is that "no compromise" rhetoric is ultimately
just empty rhetoric, and it can only be meaningful if you're starting a
Starchild Party, with a membership of one. Sure, vague nostrums about
"no compromise" are great for rallying the libertarian troops against
external enemies like the nanny state, but they have no place in
discussions of how to deal with differences among the various schools of
principled libertarianism. If you are in denial that those differences
exist, see e.g.
(I believe it's discourteous to quote more of the prior conversation
than is absolutely necessary to understand what is being added to it.
Readers have one-click access to prior messages, and those who read the
list in digest form are especially inconvenienced by lengthy re-quotes.)