If my principles disagree with theirs I will make it clear the points we disagree and agree on. I may even try to reason with them for someone with wrong principles is better than someone with no principles at all.

And usually they end up burned out too.

But what of opposing principles? People that are equally as dedicated on the other side? Is it possible to convince everyone to join your school of thought? And what of those that resist on equally immovable ideals, do you overrule them of their right to disagree? Ignore them? Banish them? Conquer them?

Maybe I’m too cynical, but you can’t convince everyone. Short of founding your own country with these ideals, I’m not sure how you could implement change in such a diverse global community. Perhaps through discussion and reflection (like we are having), but again not everyone will participate or care.

Of course, nothing’s stopping them from doing so in a free society.

Then let them immolate themselves. If they ALL voluntarily agree to it, it is fine.

what is “their way of life”. if their way of life entails using force or violating the rights of others because they need something e.g. universal health care, education etc…. then no it is immoral because you would need to use force to accomplish it.

For the sake of argument—what if the “victims” are willing and no force need be applied? There’s plenty of people of means who’re quite OK with surrendering part of their wealth for the sake of helping others.

Of course, nothing’s stopping them from doing so in a free society.

“I agree that the less control the government has over your life the better, but not everyone agrees with me on that principle. Shouldn’t there be some way of allowing those that prefer their way of life to continue to do so (so long as it doesn’t effect your own)?”

what is “their way of life”. if their way of life entails using force or violating the rights of others because they need something e.g. universal health care, education etc…. then no it is immoral because you would need to use force to accomplish it.

and this one

” Do you believe in socialized medicine? You have a right to that belief, but why forces it on every other state instead of making it a priority in your own? Massachusetts attempted health care reform and it didn’t work out too well. But they have a much better chance of successfully overhauling their system because they have a population of 6.5 million compared to three hundred million. Do you trust the government to efficiently run a project of that size?”

A government cannot run any project like that efficiently in the first place, no matter how small.

“I would prefer fifty chances of getting it right versus one”

So you have to move to a state each time one violates your rights?

I mean I GET what your saying, but all you need is to do is create a proper government– easier said than done I know—.You don’t just throw a bunch of rules together and see what works, and try 50 versions outs.

“but what of compromise?”

compromise of principles: never. those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone.compromise of strategy I can certainly agree with.

however you first you have to clarify the idea of what the proper role of government is. You need to narrow down the essentials.

In all seriousness though, I would prefer fifty chances of getting it right versus one. I would prefer the government not be involved at all, but what of compromise?