My examples were chosen, of course, to be ridiculous. "Compromise" is a major point of the work done by the political philosophers who are identified with Pragm

My examples were chosen, of course, to be ridiculous. "Compromise" is a major point of the work done by the political philosophers who are identified with Pragmatism. The fact that the word compromise is so liberally used in modern political discourse is likely due to this influence. However, as is the case in some governments, the very idea that one would compromise with their enemies is an anathema. This is especially true if one side believes they are fighting against evil. It is also the case that some people are just trolls; bad actors delighting in bad faith. It also starts getting into game theory. For example, one could forward a totally absurd position that tries to force a "legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter ..." which is actually what I wanted in the first place. That is, demand that the opposition compromise with an absurd position in order to get what I really wanted all along. It could be argued that the polarization we see in modern politics is partly attributed to this. Pragmatism has a lot of problems which the philosophers have wrestled with. I suppose some of that complexity just goes away if you refuse to deal with indeterminate positions as a rule.