The notion of compromise often receives praise as a virtuous middle ground, a means for rationally resolving conflicts and maintaining harmony. It is the balanced solution where everyone gets a little of what they want, and no one leaves entirely dissatisfied. Yet, the allure of compromise as a “fair” and peaceful resolution is nowhere grounded in reality.
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
-Ayn Rand ,“The Anatomy of Compromise,” in her _Capitalism_
COMPROMISE
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
-Ayn Rand ,“The Anatomy of Compromise,” in her _Capitalism_
Instead of taking a little from both. We should aim to go super deep on BOTH sides.