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.

You're right, and it's a good idea to respond with statements such as "i disagree" instead of always going with the "you're wrong" strategy.

In the case of principles though, I think it is pretty clear cut as to what constitutes theft and the initiation of force and what doesn't. In this case, those who support the "lost liberty hotel" idea just don't happen to value a principled defense of liberty as much as those who find the proposal objectionable.

People who generally support the Libertarian Party and have a more pro-politics brand of libertarianism also fall into this category. There's nothing wrong with such a philosophy and it doesn't necessarily deserve scorn, but it does certainly differ from those who hold more anti-politics and principled views.