The first area might be considered the moral natural or moral common law which includes such things as marriage etcetera. These "things" open to the moral free market of ideas have been defined by society as valuable while other things have been deemed of no value and or harmful. One can find no rational basis for many of these "things" -these declarations.... If comparing the free market of moral ideas with the economic free market we see many similarities with values being determined by participants, with both success and failure being determined by and within the free market (society). Looking for instance at the value of an SUV automobile or a fine piece of artwork or lets say an IPOD -where is the rational basis? Do you see where I am going here?
No. Neither do I understand your argument. The value of goods is decided in the market by what people are willing to pay. The basis for that value being rational being that consensus. That society values some institutions or character traits over others is yet another exercise in reaching a consensus, and therefore rational.
I am suggesting that the premise itself that all things require a rational basis is a flawed premise... This flawed premise in essence cedes authentic individual liberty to a higher authority. In the case of Libertarians it would seem they choose to sacrifice what they consider irrational social order for government imposed social order... e.g. they prefer a government controlled 'neutered' moral free market... This neutering premised in rational requirement flies in the face of what the Founders established by guaranteeing freedom of Religion for the very reason that the free market of ideas should be free... One could say that the requirement for no "religious test" is is being trampled by a government that imposes a 'rational' test that by default establishes a secular humanist state religion...
By that logic, you can also argue the guaranteeing the free exercise of religion is irrational because it guarantees a right to practice a religion that demands pursuit of the imposition of that religion on others and denial of right of others to practice any other religion. As far as a having a secular government amounting to an imposition of religion in and of itself, that runs into an explicit contradiction in terms that finds that anything not explicitly religous to be explicitly religious. I don't see any potential for having a rational discussion on those terms, or any particular point in having an irrational discussion.
The second area might be considered the unalienable/inalienable. Again, these have no rational basis... If one was sat down in front of a judge and had to argue that he is endowed with freedom form the Creator he could not prove it -he could only point to the Constitution... One might then say WELL does the Constitution grant this freedom -if so, then what if we revoke it? What it comes down to is principles and what they are premised upon. One could say that moral Conservatives have principles founded upon something that goes beyond and transcends that piece of paper that Libertarians defend while at the same time discounting that which premises it... This paradox seems odd to me and as well dangerous as repeatedly I have stated this equates to a political entity with moral relative principles that van be swayed in any direction like leaves blowing in the wind...
Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premise:
When left to make their own decisions, the vast majority of people will make decisions that are in their own best interest, and will provide for their own well being, and that the best long term interests of the Republic are served by letting them do so whenever practical.
A quick response to this as I cruise by -will read the rest later...
What I was suggesting was not an imposition of a religion as that would entail a state religion. What I was getting at was that religion (any religion) is just as valid a premise for inclusion in public discourse as any rationally deduced 'fact'. Further that from the outset, to declare religiously premised ideas as irrelevant due to no rational basis goes against the whole concept of a free market of ideas that the founders deemed important and established with the freedom of religion guarantee... We saw an example of this "trampling" on the free market ideas recently in California with Proposition 8 being set aside based upon an irrational premise underlying it (religion)...
Consider what I am stating here. IF religion gets sent to the back of the bus then how far are we from having voters justify their votes in any election with some judge deciding whether or not the people are rational...
---I will get to the rest and continue later...