The author of the Topic is the OP.
Disagreement is self-evident. What is the goal?
A. Find where the competitive viewpoints agree.
B. Dominate the target viewpoint by any means whatsoever.
C. Following orders without question (dictionary definition?)
Ethics are perspectives worthy of argument?
I think that a more competitive perspective is such that "ethics" (so called) are the results of people seeking to find agreement without resorting to deception, threats of violence, or violence as a means by which one perspective dominates all the other competitive perspectives.
I have my way of viewing life and I think it is accurate and competitive (because it is accurate).
"Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency:..."
Personal agency is an example of a viewpoint. How many people understand that viewpoint in a way that is universal to everyone without exception?
If two people are unable to understand "personal agency" in the same way, both people having two different definitions of the term, then which person has the more accurate understanding of personal agency?
Does one person dominate the other person in cases where one person has a different understanding of personal agency compared to the other?
What is the process by which one person defines personal agency the same way as any other person also defines personal agency?
"Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency: taxation..."
I am being taxed right now, as my life is altered by the contact I have with that sentence above, and now I am taxing my time and energy, my will power, my brain power, my power to survive well, and as this taxation is playing out in my life, right now: I'm trying to understand exactly what the term "taxation" means in this context of this discussion on this topic.
Taxation = robbery by criminals with badges?
There are easily, now, 3 terms that are subject to very wide ranges of understanding:
What does that mean? If that means the same thing as taxation, whereby people claim to be authorized to rob other people, then the concept of calling crimes by other names, is a crime.
Aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support, to criminals, by helping the criminals cover up their crimes, by using words and terms that work to cover up those crimes, is crime in fact.
Why do it?
"Disagreement and as similarly pointed above, the virtue of choice permits protagonist/antagonist views while arriving at ethical principle"
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
I can explain my competitive perspective in direct comparison to the perspective reported in that short list of 2 perspectives listed above, and for the life of me I can't explain, without accessing a process that allows me to explain, the other viewpoint.
How can a "choice" be a virtue? If I choose to invent, produce, and release a virus that destroys all life on Earth, for example, then I, a human being, having made that choice: I make a virtue?
"Perhaps while paradoxically your commentary itself is an argument..."
If the perspective I offer with English symbols is perceived by someone else as an "argument", so named, then as far as I am concerned my goal of transferring my perspective intact has failed.
Is there a process by which one perspective perceived by one person can be transferred to someone else intact and thereby avoid the miscommunications that often occur, such as this example where I am offering a competitive viewpoint, and this effort appears to be misunderstood to be an argument, so named?
If such a process exists, where one person attempts to transfer a competitive perspective accurately, and succeeds, and if so, if such a process exists, what is that process called in English?
"do you agree with the Platform of individual choice concerning public domain"
I have a very difficult time understanding the English symbols arranged in the order offered by the person offering a viewpoint as exemplified by that series of words quoted above.
What is "public domain"?
"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)?"
I don't speak falsehood, if possible, I prefer to speak factually, therefore the question asked is impossible to answer accurately without at least some progress toward the goal of understanding the viewpoint being offered.
If you can place someone inside the "public domain" then do so, and then I can get an idea as to what it is, and then I'm going to want to know what any person has to do, according to you, to get in that "public domain", and then I will want to know how a person can get out of that "public domain".
Not having specific things known, it seems to me, makes communication impossible - for some reason.