The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: >
>
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)?
Replies to this comment: