[Celtjew Libertarian]

However, I do not believe that it would be difficult to rationally defend everyones right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I do not think this is what your saying but bare with me, I have to pose the question. Do you think there is no rational argument for these rights?

I believe there are rational arguments for them and I believe that the rational arguments for them are better than that against.

However, I think there are rational arguments against. For example, if we all lived regimented lives, where we were compelled to eat some specific diet, we may well, on the average, live longer. If I bring up that certain people have certain special needs, than the person supporting regimented diet can say that specific, regimented diets can be made for specific needs.

I'd just as soon skip to the chase: As part of my right to pursue happiness, I have the right to eat what I can afford to eat. Maybe I will live a shorter time because of it, but I will enjoy that time more. I cannot rationally demonstrate that -- after all, how do you rationally demonstrate "higher enjoyment"? -- so I appeal back to the authority of the Declaration of Independence for my argument.

[ndt]

"I believe there are rational arguments for them and I believe that the rational arguments for them are better than that against."

I half regretted my post once I had hit submit. Having read your home page (last paragraph specifically) I would wager that we are probably on the same page on many things political.

Hashing the differences between "rational argument" vs. "self evident nature" in the context of the DoI is more an exercise in coffee shop philosophy in that we agree on the conclusion regardless of the reasons why.

While to you and I and most importantly the writers of the DoI, "these rights" are self evident; the self evident nature of those rites have not been held to be true in many places at many times. Therein lies the failure of dogma. Dogma only persuades the the converted, it holds no sway on those who do no already agree with it's conclusion.