Compromise is Surrender

In her essay “The Anatomy of Compromise,” Ayn Rand wrote that when basic principles are involved, compromise is surrender:

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.

We can see this truth on display in St. Paul.

In November 2021, St. Paul voters approved a rent control ordinance that was widely regarded as the most draconian in the nation. Developers immediately began putting housing projects on hold because of the arbitrary restrictions on their profits.

City officials then began scrambling to find a way to motivate developers to resume building the housing that St. Paul so desperately needs. That effort culminated in an amendment to the law—new construction will be exempt from rent control for twenty years. Tenants didn’t want any exemption, while some developers wanted a thirty-year exemption. The amendment was regarded as a compromise between tenants and developers. In truth, it was a surrender of the basic principle involved—the freedom to produce and trade.

 In “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise,” Rand provided a concrete example:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

The compromise means that in twenty years landlords will lose their freedom to trade on terms that they find acceptable. Landlords will be forced to operate their businesses only as the government approves. In principle, this is precisely what tenants and housing activists wanted.

Tenants may view the amendment as a partial victory. In truth, it was a total victory. Rent control advocates and their allies on city council want the power to control how landlords operate. They have achieved this. The extent of that control and when it can be exercised is merely a detail.

We can be certain that housing advocates will demand that the law be strengthened at some time in the future. If developers in St. Paul do not want more controls and restrictions piled onto their shoulders, they must reject the notion that anyone—including a majority of voters or City Council—has a right to dictate the terms by which they produce and trade. They must state the principle involved clearly and proudly. Anything less is compromise, and compromise is surrender.