It’s important to focus on the fact that you have an ideology that doesn’t emphasize a requirement that actions must be correct, meaning rationally valid, and doesn’t enforce accountability for actions that are outside of correctness, or if it does, tends to do so arbitrarily and inconsistently.

You have an ideology that doesn’t know what is correct and therefore cannot put it into law, but tends to put non-aggression into law, informally, and somehow knows that that’s correct, yet can’t know what is correct regarding search and seizure, custody of children regarding total meth heads, or any number of questions I could throw at it. Is it correct to pull someone over at all, and if it were, is it correct It could be pulled over on a busy freeway, endangering everyone? You don’t have the answers, yet somehow you have the answer to whether or not aggression is immoral? By what means that you arrive to that answer, and why can’t that same way be used to answer a whole bunch of other questions?

The truth is that you had to use rationalism to find out whether aggression was immoral or not, and so rationalism can answer that and many more questions, yet you have this persistent denial that rationalism can and should be used to find correct laws.

You deduce from self-ownership that there are property rights, and you use rationalism for this, yet you can’t use rationalism to determine whether abortion is a moral or not? You can’t use rationalism to determine whether the death penalty is immoral or not? More precisely, rationalism can find correctness, whereas morality is a word too loosely defined for rationalism to deal with. Hence, rational morality is actually the search for correctness, not for what is deemed moral.

Because correctness is important for both morality and law, rational morality is foundational to determining the correct path for all human interactions. Outside of correctness is the violation of somebody in some way, which is not something that law can be tolerating.

It is befuddling that you do not have correctness as your standard, yet you appeal to correctness (what is rationally valid) in order to justify things like self-ownership, non-aggression, and property rights.

You will make statists and those having all manner of like positions out to look like they are the scum of the earth, all because you have some grounding in correctness, while they likely do not, and yet you will stop at one or two principles, thinking that’s all there can be? The full spectrum of correctness is not encompassed by a couple of principles. Thinking you are more correct than the entire world might be based, but thinking that you have full correctness is entirely flawed.

Constant, timeless, and unchanging truths are numerous, and are findable if you look for them, but supposing you have all the truth is the surest way to not find more of it.