My God, Tom. You're spouting nonsense, now. Sure, slavery is an obvious evil, to us, today.

But to half of those "philosophers" in the 18th century it was a man's right to own slaves. It was part of his freedom, his liberty. And those principled philosophers were dead wrong. A century later, men were willing to turn traitor, to kill their own countrymen or die trying because they felt that as "free" men they had the "right" to own other men and their issue. They were just as wrong. But there is no way I can prove that, I certainly couldn't have proven it to those principled philosophers..

This is about property more than it is about principle. Yes principle matters, and I am convinced there are things worth fighting and killing and dying for, but don't presume to tell me what they are, especially when my conscience tells me you're dead wrong, and when my reason tells me your principle is guided mostly by your profit.

I've noticed you have no trouble condemning as morally or intellectually unfit those who disagree with your principles. Why should they suddenly feel their principles are worthless and yours suddenly preempt theirs? Why should I abandon my principles and adopt yours? What gives you the right to condemn me because I don't agree with your principles.

I'll give you the example you're really interested in: I don't believe anyone has a right to own property, particularly land, capital, or the means of production. As a capitalist, I believe property is useful, important and essential to a well-regulated economy, and I subscribe to the system we have developed to manage and administer the distribution and ownership of property. But it is a system we adopt willingly, after negotiation and compromise, and which is regulated by the state and described by our laws, precedent, and long established custom. I accept capitalism because it is good, and it works, and it is administered fairly, but it is not my right. There is no right to property, there is only a mutually acceptable legal arrangement.

I once asked a Baptist minister how the Lord could condemn to hell an otherwise virtuous man who could not accept Jesus as his Savior because he had never heard of him (perhaps he had lived in a time or place where no one was familiar with Christianity).

The Reverend answered that such a man was not a sinner, UNLESS he heard the gospel explained to him. At that moment, if he did not accept it immediately and unconditionally, he became a sinner.

I know you're not a religious fanatic, Tom, but in political matters, you sure think like one.