My more fundamental point is that when you stop talking about general and potential areas of compromise among liberals and libertarians, you’re left with some pretty small and lame actual policy compromises. In a liberaltarian world, you’ll be able to wear baggy pants and make pot brownies according to government-specified pot-baking instructions. I don’t see a lot of other areas for compromise – from a truly libertarian perspective, this "compromise" is also dubious, at best.
Libertarians may want to scale back government, but think of all the minorities and women and children that would be hurt by such action! What sort of libertarian changes wouldn’t have some kind of disparate impact? A move to a more libertarian world would require progressives to admit defeat. Progressivism is incapable of admitting defeat – by its definition of itself, what it wants is always "progress."
On a separate note, I must object to Aretae’s closing lines:
I’m with Matt Ridley here, requoting:
I find that my disagreement is mostly with reactionaries of all political colours: blue ones who dislike cultural change, red ones who dislike economic change and green ones who dislike technological change.
This counts as cultural change, offends the blue reactionaries, and its distastefulness is attributable almost entirely to prejudices of the current day. I’d think especially that a hyper-reactionary like Foseti would know this. It’s certainly no less ridiculous than togas or neckties.
I use the term reactionary to mean "opposed to democracy." Like Carlyle. I think any modern reactionary would like to see lots of cultural, economic and technological change. We’d just like to move away from the progressive definition of "change."