The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: >

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Competitively false? (see in situ)


1) OP

Sorry, please explain what this means

2) 'the wrong of argument'

Disagreement: I see the conception of argument as an intellectual position when making a case, be it protagonist/('for' ~agreement) or antagonist/('against' ~disagreement) concerning an issue

3) 'The new political party announces the willful employment of argument'

Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency: taxation, mandated insurance etc; conversely there are other positions which deny personal agency including individual choice to fund/defund public chapters, for example

4) 'That exposes a contradiction'

Disagreement and as similarly pointed above, the virtue of choice permits protagonist/antagonist views while arriving at ethical principle

5) 'I think that it is competitively more accurate to avoid arguments and to work for agreements if the goal is Liberty'

Perhaps while paradoxically your commentary itself is an argument; so do you agree with the Platform of individual choice concerning public domain, or not (and if so, why)?