There's a difference about partially agreeing versus supporting actions that infringes upon one's rights.
If I discuss how you, for example, are infringing upon one's rights, naturally I have to support your position from a philosophical basis.
If you attempt to retort with credibility, it certainly supports your position if you have evidence, philosophical/epistemological/moral, etc.
You don't need to cop out a discussion on ethics by citing a Constitutional Convention to discuss morality. Especially if you have objections to said philosophy/position. Otherwise your objections are simply html code on a screen. But if that's your intention, so be it.
From an argumentative standpoint, you're in a nice position -- one who can criticize freely while not revealing fully your principles. What's the point of even engaging on an honest basis if you always maintain this position?
Point being, "feasibility" has to be defined and given structure. Just because you don't think it's "feasible" doesn't mean you're right -- or that my argument is wrong.
But who knows what you mean by feasible, as you have deemed it "pointless" to make a point.
Ahh, now I've realized... your name -- whatever -- quite suitable.
I respect Mr. John Wolfe's character and request for a debate.
He was on 95.3FM the other day discussing his platform; a libertarian called him out on his stance on Social Security. After some back and forth, Mr. Wolfe exclaimed, more or less, that "to function in this society, you have to give up some autonomy."
Progressive for sure. At least he's honest.
I think you make a good point; I have a family, I want to see my son grow up, I want success. Admittedly, withdrawing consent wholly as the Founder's did is something I'm not at the moment willing to do. That, if considered a character fault, is such.
However, it still doesn't change the argument. Analyze carefully the boundaries of truly morally-bound government -- I stated it above, plus have stated many of times in prior posts (hint, the non-aggression principle). Just because I consent on some level, doesn't mean I fully agree with its activities.
Assuming you're a US citizen and you disagree with our country's act of imperialism and you haven't moved to Switzerland, does that make your cries for withdraw or redrafting of a foreign policy less genuine? I'd argue not.
And conclusively, one must define the nature of "good" and the type of "service" a morally-bound government would provide. You know my terms (hint, non-aggression principle). What are yours? If they violate the laws of nature and of man, then it is immoral, no matter how much of a necessary evil it is.
Perhaps the confusion with libertarianism has been the false labeling that we care not for other's concerns, or that we preferentially choose parts of the government that suite our needs. I don't know how or why the label began -- before my time, I suppose.
Philosophically and morally, unlike most people, I equate the government's actions as the exact same as how you and I would deal with each other. This is a fundamental framing of the government, not as an entity on a pedestal, devoid from the same criticisms you and I would receive, but merely an entity I treat with the same set of standards.
Plus I understand -- as I implore you and everyone else reading this -- that governments by default (so far at least) have a monopoly power on force. Thus the importance of almost complete restrictions of its abilities, only to the most vital and moral of actions (arguably roads, law enforcement, etc. -- though there are libertarians who'd argue that the private sector could fulfill those as well).
So, it's not that I don't have compassion or a desire to help, I simply think the government acting as a proxy to forcefully confiscate the personal property of another to provide welfare for another, is tantamount to a mobster forcefully taking tribute from an innocent victim to feed another's family.
...So how can an act by the government be virtuous when it starts immorally?
Al, did you send in your quarterly slavery tribute last month? ;-)
That's what the Neo-cons keep saying -- Limbaugh and Hannity in particular -- that we have to start trusting Republicans to uphold the tenants of the Constitution. And, God help us, what horrible things we'd suffer if a 3rd party formed.
But would you trust a cheating, no good spouse after 20+ years to somehow magically wake up and get the picture?
The Tea Party is a highly decentralized movement, with Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich serving the Neo-Con, Republican Establishment, and the Christian Right faction, and the more-libertarian leaning on the side of Ron Paul.
Honestly, both are aligned pretty much in the mantra of taxed enough already, but when it comes to social issues (gay marriage, abortion, War on Drugs), economic issues (ramping down of SS vs. the total obliteration of it), and military issues (non-interventionism versus foreign adventurism/imperialism), you'll find the divide is quit wide between the two.
However, the BIG divide between both sides is how each defines the role of our government in national defense, and how it should be implemented. I doubt that 80% of the Tea Party is ready to withdraw troops from pretty much around the world.
As a libertarian -- and a cynic -- the Tea Party will probably not come under one cohesive banner of principles. We freedom-oriented types -- meaning total economic and personal freedom, only limited to the rightful principles of non-aggression -- would leave the "tea party" for something else.
Frankly, I think I have a better chance at secession to employ most of my radical ideas.
Your subtle sarcasm runs dark and deep, whatever.
I do enjoy it, when I catch it.
Did you not see the particulars of the non-aggression principle point, ie, "without harm, fraud, deceit," etc.?
Your concerns about how rights can be affected are clearly covered accordingly. Every point you made about smoking, suicide, etc., is covered fairly according to the non-aggression principle -- while NOT infringing another's.
Do you not know what the non-aggression principle is? Can you not scroll up and at least get a primer for what I was specifically stating earlier before you muster an unsubstantiated response?
Clearly if something has proof of causing harm, then allow the law to take its course. Your non-response of not wanting a lawsuit is obvious if we know its harmful (if, being the key word). Otherwise, forcing your will as you see fit, for whatever unfounded ideal you believe, upon another without their consent is unsubstantiated aggression at its finest.
If there is any argument absurd as you have referenced, it's your continued non-argument against the idea backed with proof that all individuals have rights that are equal, and should always be protected against infringement.
I'll leave you with this.
As soon as you can argue against my "false ideals" with a clear factual, logical, or theoretical basis, any response you muster is no more than the emotional grasping at straws many Tea Partyers are guilty for.
In the mean time, even if you don't like what I read, but decide to engage on some level, whether sarcastic or genuinely, at least spend some time re-reading my responses and clarifying points. Otherwise you hang your retorts on non-logic, based on sparsing of words as you see fit, selective cutting-and-pasting, in order to fit your one-sided view.
Which is fine if you admit any of your continued engagement will continue without proper illumination of your axioms.
What is the incentive of the businessman?
What obligations to the citizens of said government trump the interests of the citizens who happen to work within business?
How does one go about preventing the compromising of serving its citizens to favor "business?"