Sure: black and white exist in the world, and there are fundamental truths. There is justice in the world. But there exist people who will disagree with your view of justice, and the question is how you will interact with them. If compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?

In general I've found that zeal for justice correlates with the tendency to disregard the possibility that one's own argument is wrong. That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.

> If compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?

Not necessarily. Ideally, these people should be ignored. It isn't until they are actively standing in the way of freedom that real conflict should occur.

> That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.

Like I said, there is plenty of gray in the world (like how to best promote freedom). But I and every person who values freedom should be prepared for conflict. And I'm ok with not having any other options other than conflict if it means freedom.

> Moral relativism is for the spineless.

I'd say there are plenty of things where you and I will differ about the morality. You may call those grey areas, but I'd say there's a whole lot more grey than there is black and white.