Your conclusions in this article are pretty agreeable.
I’m not a proponent of the claim that The Constitution is inherently justified. In theory, any amendment that can be improved upon ought to be. It’s also possible for opposing ideologies to come up with different interpretations of words (especially to maximize their wealth).

Enforcing an interpretation is kinda like getting your kid’s friends to cooperate in a game of Jinx. The kids may agree to keep their mouthes shut, but who’s going to stop them from abandoning the game?

I would guess that neither the Rep. nor Dem. parties have strong incentives to preserve the interpretation of the amendments that you support.

The (increasing number) of Americans who don’t support the Rep./Dem. dichotomy need a more vicious means of civil disobedience (my definition of “vicious” is pretty vague). Are there any forms of boycotting you would advocate? (I suppose income taxes are one of them).

Reply:
I hear that a lot from libertarians.
Here’s the problem – the fact that a worker is (in a sense) “choosing” is superficial.

Suppose a person can choose between a job that…

A) Hurts a lot
or
B) Hurts even more

…there is STILL a sense in which they are forced.
If the person can only choose between A or B, then they are not free to choose between a job that:

A) Hurts a lot
B) Hurts even more
C) Hurts very little
D) Hardly ever hurts
E) Hardly ever hurts, and allows for creativity

While it is true that a particular employer does not force the person, society (as a whole) forces the individual through the range of choices.

(Maybe we actually agree on this one). ; )

Let me work with your definition of aggression.
The real difference between “force” and “aggression” (for the libertarian) depends on property meeting the condition of “belonging to a person”.

Now, let’s use an example.

- On one day, I work 8 hours a day. Someone in Papua New Guinea also works 8 hours.

- I (the American) am paid $100 a day. The Papuan is paid $1 a day.

A = 100
P = 1

- Is there an absolute basis for the money being distributed this way? If $1 belongs to the Papuan, why not 2 or 3?

- Without using taxes (and instead having the employers change the next day’s wages) suppose the wage rate were changed to:

A = 95
P = 6

- Now, is this change “aggressive”? We’re not pulling money away from A, we’re simply changing the future wages. The libertarian has to explain why taxes meet the definition of “aggression” / “theft”, but not wage losses (even if the amount lost is the same).

- You could contend that P should equal 1 because if P is too high, it will create needless waste (or wreck an economy) but that kind of libertarianism is consequential, not deontological.

Really? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Force used in self defense is not “initiating force.” It is the appropriate response to the initiation of force (aggression).

“The interesting thing is… you often don’t need to hold people at gunpoint in order to threaten them, because there are much tamer alternatives to guns (such as money). Nevertheless, people force each other to do things against their will, and the things people are being forced to do could still lead to incredibly negative consequences.”

This is so nonsensical it’s hard to respond to at all. No, offering someone money to get them to do something is not “forcing them.” They are making a choice to accept the money in exchange for whatever you want them to do. That’s not the same thing as giving them a choice between doing what you want them to do and having violence committed against them.

Ok, I have to assume that the rest is deliberately stupid. Can’t muster the energy for further reply…

Reply:
If force isn’t initiated, how could it exist? How could an ideology support force without initiating it?

The interesting thing is… you often don’t need to hold people at gunpoint in order to threaten them, because there are much tamer alternatives to guns (such as money). Nevertheless, people force each other to do things against their will, and the things people are being forced to do could still lead to incredibly negative consequences.
__________________________________________

Tom:
Aggression means one person initiates violence or threatens to initiate violence against another person.

Reply:
Here’s a thought experiment:

SCENARIO A) Bill shoots Kurt (against Kurt’s will).
SCENARIO B) Bill persuades Kurt to shoot himself.

Scenario A has aggression and B doesn’t. And yet, A and B produce the same outcomes.
Libertarianism has to explain why B is morally superior to A.

If holding someone at gunpoint is immoral because it goes against someone’s will (and not because of the outcomes it will produce) then what is significant about the will?
A person’s will simply indicates what their preferred pleasure is, and Scenarios A and B contain the same levels of pleasure and pain (or almost the same).
__________________________________________

Tom:
Morality confines itself to the way human beings interact with others.
Earthquakes are not immoral. Murder is.

Reply:
My definition of “morality” does not imply that earthquakes are immoral. I am suggesting that the mediocrity of beings is inherently bad (and not coercion), but you have to factor in physical limits. If a being can’t prevent an earthquake, there is still always some “best” action that the individual can commit.
__________________________________________

Tom:
Those things a person has produced himself or acquired with the consent of the previous owner are his.

Reply:
What is the basis for this? If the previous owner’s consent matters, why not the consent of other affected individuals? I don’t know how you could justify not distributing resources based on where they’ll do the most good.
__________________________________________

Tom:
It is wrong to threaten other people with violence, whether to get their stuff or to interfere with their peaceful actions.

Reply:
I can very easily think of a counterexample (this one’s inflated to make my point).

If Earth were in danger of being wiped out by a UFO, and the only way to stop the UFO were to demolish a person’s house (and that person doesn’t want their property demolished) then demolishing it would still be justified.