>it is in no way their place to dictate what is or is not in the previous poster's "best interest".
That's the libertarian position. Which is fine, but know that you're now in the company of those who think it should be fine to sell methamphetamine or asbestos or expired food and medicine because people should be free to decide what's in their own interest.
>When the radical theists do, I am fairly sure the rest of us will be amenable.
I don't think the radicals are the real obstacle. They're just the loudest and the most obnoxious -- and they're the hardest to convince anyway. What you need are the moderates who are just on the other side of the line. They're the ones who you never see on television but you always see in the voting booth. Which is why condemning anyone who disagrees with you is a bad strategy. You don't want to fight against the middle, you want to convince them to fight for you.
That's the libertarian position. Which is fine, but know that you're now in the company of those who think it should be fine to sell methamphetamine or asbestos or expired food and medicine because people should be free to decide what's in their own interest.
>When the radical theists do, I am fairly sure the rest of us will be amenable.
I don't think the radicals are the real obstacle. They're just the loudest and the most obnoxious -- and they're the hardest to convince anyway. What you need are the moderates who are just on the other side of the line. They're the ones who you never see on television but you always see in the voting booth. Which is why condemning anyone who disagrees with you is a bad strategy. You don't want to fight against the middle, you want to convince them to fight for you.