I do have a problem with a movement that wants to give us a "libertarian" solution but end up with a "liberal" outcome.
No doubt your concern is very legitimate. In politics, as you seem to be quite aware of, compromise is always the first likely outcome, and is never fully predictable. Prudence would say, that one cannot just plan for the desired ends, but must also plan for the likely compromised ends. This you seem to be doing with a high degree of political awareness. (I'm not making a tong in cheek sneak attack this time.)
Liberals face this same fundamental problem. Liberals see themselves as being in the service of all individuals, not just the majority. As Galbraith put it, defending the free enterprise system must also include defending the "least amongst us." To do this they realize that a certain amount of authoritarianism is unavoidable. They can thus compromise with selected special interests (of which some will include anti free enterprise neo-Marxists), but will ensure that the "least amongst us" are not forgotten, or they can compromise with the conservatives, who will trade off every possible protection for the "least amongst us" as well as the free enterprise system itself in favor of monopoly capitalism, which in turn will diminish the liberal ranks, as Marxists draw off those being left behind.
My reply #55 addressed to "walden" and his reply #22 was a mistake. I did reply to his #22 in my reply #57.
Correction
My reply #55 was meant for "Texasforever" and his reply #21.
As a libertarian, I say both #22 and #21 were excellent, even if they did come from a couple of lousy good for nothing statists!:-)