> You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", a

> You seem to think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) we can divorce our philosophy from our system of government and talk only about "real practical issues", and I would politely reply that it's impossible. Obviously you can't divorce your philosophy from your views on issues insomuch as those views derive from your philosophy. That doesn't mean that you have to regress every single discussion to philosophizing by using hyperbole such that the discussion of the issues is obstructed by the discussion of your personal philosophy. The vast majority of people do not equate taxation with threat of death, so every time that is brought into the conversation, it completely derails the conversation and makes it unproductive. And no, it is not a more practical argument than I give it credit for. It is a slippery slope argument at best, and that is being exceedingly charitable. Back to the issue at hand, the unhealthy/toxic distinction was just to try to get you to rethink your assumptions (doesn't seem to have worked). The real objection I have is the one you chose not to respond to: drastically unhealthy choices by other citizens are born by everyone else through increased costs of health care and insurance. Inevitably your response is that forcing anyone to pay for the health care of anyone else is an act of violence and therefore not permissible according to your libertarian ethics, but that means that we have to let people simply fall over dead if they can't pay for treatment, which in the opinion of most is a far greater moral wrong. If I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize in advance and am very curious to hear how you reconcile this problem.