Sunni,

In recent weeks I've given some thought to this subject, and it occurs to me that perhaps the vital issue here for me is the question of whether principles are personal and subjective, or ABSOLUTE and objective. If one considers principles a personal, individual matter, it seems natural to extend respect to differing viewpoints even when one disagrees with them. If one considers them absolute, it seems appropriate to subject differing viewpoints to harsh criticism, ridicule, and even to penalize the "moral offender" when one disagrees strongly enough with an aberrant viewpoint.

The problem with considering principles absolute is, "who decides?" What infallible source of wisdom can one turn to as a final arbiter regarding the correctness of fixed moral principles? Can a human being truly respect individual authority, while believing that the final authority rests with some greater or exterior source apart from the individual? Isn't that the crux of the dilemma that many libertarians encounter with governments, as well as religions based on coercive authoritarian principles?

The distinction between saying "You're wrong," and saying, "I disagree with you," seems like an essential distinction for libertarians to acknowledge, or "pro-freedom" people if you prefer. People tend to discuss disagreements reasonably and intelligibly - while discussing issues in terms of absolute "right" and "wrong" tends to discourage or prohibit reasonable or friendly debate, in my observation.

Just my two cents... :)