- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can you be fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:21 pm to Zach
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:21 pm to Zach
quote:
No, because almost every 'socially liberal' position you can take involves redistribution of wealth.
If you believe that govt has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves then you are not a libertarian.
The libertarian position is private sector charity or just die... and try not to leave a stinking mess for others to clean up.
no, it doesn't ... wrong again ...
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:22 pm to Jokey1968
Uh, yeah. That is basically what a libertarian is. At least to a degree, it's a viewpoint that predominates on this board.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:22 pm to Zach
quote:
No, because almost every 'socially liberal' position you can take involves redistribution of wealth.
No. No it doesn't.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:26 pm to CptRusty
quote:Possibly
I think we are talking past each other.
quote:Yep, but all government are in some ways or others.
Obviously our existing government has become a bloated gigantic morality enforcement machine.
quote:Even Libertarians have to have a basis for human rights and why they should be protected by a government.
I am saying that from a Libertarian perspective, this form of government is unacceptable and completely unnecessary.
quote:I figured as much but I thought I'd mention our government specifically just in case.
ETA: When I say "the point of government is to protect the rights of its citizens" I am not speaking about the government of the USA, I am speaking about government as an abstract concept. What it should be, not the mess we currently have.
Morality cannot be escaped, no matter what framework you use for government. There will always have to be a standard to judge both government and people as right or wrong, good or bad. We do it all the time; it's a part of life.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Even Libertarians have to have a basis for human rights and why they should be protected by a government.
True, but they do not need to be rooted in something as subjective as morality.
A purely secular definition of human rights would be that anything which does not create externalities are considered "rights". Right to throw the punch ends at your neighbors nose, etc. etc....probably poor phrasing on my part, but point being that no subjective view of right and wrong, and certainly no religious view of the same, is necessary.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:43 pm to CptRusty
quote:My point is that unless their is an objective standard, all other standards have to be subjective by necessity.
True, but they do not need to be rooted in something as subjective as morality.
quote:That's a fairly good standard in my opinion, but that's all it is: an opinion. It has no more merit than any other standard. Saying it's secular doesn't make it intrinsically better or worse, only that it fits another standard that you like, namely that it is a-religious. Why is that objectively better than any other standard, religious or otherwise?
A purely secular definition of human rights would be that anything which does not create externalities are considered "rights". Right to throw the punch ends at your neighbors nose, etc. etc....probably poor phrasing on my part
quote:Again, unless you have an objective standard that transcends all cultures, times, and contexts (such as is found in a God that transcends humanity), then all standards are subjective. You're just trying to make your case for why your own subjective standard is better than other subjective standards.
but point being that no subjective view of right and wrong, and certainly no religious view of the same, is necessary.
But back to my initial point: you cannot completely remove morality from government. There are moral arguments that can be made for government's involvement and its exclusion from just about everything in life.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:46 pm to Jokey1968
People like to believe that you can, but it really isn't possible from a logical standpoint.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:47 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
but it really isn't possible from a logical standpoint.
explain
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The reason the founders put the framework in place was to protect natural rights that were endowed by my God.
so your judeo-christian god is the only one of the thousands of deities on this planet that cracked the nut on inalienable rights?
quote:
If you reject God, you have no objective basis for human dignity and therefore human rights that need to be protected.
Ya, I do. It's called a natural right. God is irrelevant.
quote:
the entire basis for a government set up to protect the dignity and rights of citizens is based on the idea that we have innate and inalienable dignity and rights as human beings,
This part is correct.
quote:
which are created in the image of God, and are given a special status as such.
This is you imposing your religious beliefs.
quote:
Whether you like it or not, you can't completely separate morality from government.
I have done just that already in this very thread.
Morality is irrelevant. Government exists to protect my rights from those who would wish to infringe on them.
That is neither good nor bad. It is inherently amoral.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 2:56 pm to Jokey1968
Socially liberal means being a bat shite crazy SJW
Freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others is a classically liberal idea and those ideas only exist in libertarian circles
Freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others is a classically liberal idea and those ideas only exist in libertarian circles
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:10 pm to FooManChoo
The "no externalities" thing is as close as I can approximate to an objective standard. It doesn't require any sort of subjective judgement, and hence no morality.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:10 pm to tiderider
quote:
no, it doesn't ... wrong again ...
Yes, it does. Give me an example of a socially liberal position that does not involve public money?
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:18 pm to Centinel
quote:You have to start outside of humanity first before you can look for an objective standard. Any standard created by a human is subjective by definition and cannot be objective in relation to other humans.
so your judeo-christian god is the only one of the thousands of deities on this planet that cracked the nut on inalienable rights?
If you want to discuss the existence of he God of the Bible and how other gods don't exist or are not in a position of authority over humans then I'd be more than happy to do so.
At this point in the conversation, I've gone from saying that government deals in morality whether we like them to or not, and am now discussing how all human-contrived standards (secular or not) have to be subjective and no better or worse than any other subjective standard without an objective standard to judge it by.
quote:Absolutely not. If God is irrelevant then animals also can have natural rights (we're participating in animal slavery with our pets!) since in a truly atheistic worldview (practically speaking, at least) we are just animals and have no intrinsic value that is greater than any other animal. Natural rights, therefore, have to come from somewhere: either we make them up because we subjectively like the thought of them or they exist because an objective source (God) says so. Natural rights are like elements that exist in the universe that we can objectively study. They are immaterial characteristics related to our existence as human beings.
Ya, I do. It's called a natural right. God is irrelevant.
quote:Yes, but it has no objective basis if you remove God from the equation. If you do that, it's just one opinion among many.
This part is correct
quote:I'm stating my religious beliefs and the beliefs of the founders that were the ones talking about inalienable rights. "Imposing" would be forcing them. I have no authority or means to impose my beliefs on you.
This is you imposing your religious beliefs.
quote:No you haven't. You've given a secular, subjective opinion about what you think we should base our understanding of human rights, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I have done just that already in this very thread.
If you think government should protect your subjective standard of human rights, you think government has a moral obligation to protect your subjective standard of human rights. If it doesn't protect your standard or it directly infringes upon on it, government is acting immorally and you are free to judge it so based on your standard. Your standard for role of government would therefore be transformed into a moral standard by which you, personally, hold governments accountable to in order to determine if they are acting rightly or wrongly. I think it's kind of ironic, actually.
quote:There are many definitions of government and what their purpose is for. Some view government as a necessary means to enforce morality, to exact (and preserve) justice, to provide for those who need assistance or protection, or any number of variations of some power and authority acting in some way (hopefully positive) for those who are under that power and authority.
Morality is irrelevant. Government exists to protect my rights from those who would wish to infringe on them.
That is neither good nor bad. It is inherently amoral.
If rights have a moral quality to them and governments have a moral obligation to uphold and protect those rights, how can you say morality is irrelevant? Even if you accept the role of government as preserving your natural, human rights, you have an expectation that the government will do that very thing and you will judge it as a moral government or immoral government based on how it lives up to that responsibility.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:21 pm to Salmon
quote:
No, because almost every 'socially liberal' position you can take involves redistribution of wealth. No. No it doesn't.
Give me an example. Go ahead and try. But you folks only have a half hour. I gotta sign off at 4.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:23 pm to kingbob
Yeah I can't stand trump, but I was all for the tax cut mostly I just didn't like the middle class cuts being temporary.
If someone wants to smoke weed, Marry the same sex, cut their pee pee off, worship a flying spaghetti monster, or a zombie Jewish man. Fine I don't care it doesn't cost money and it doesn't effect anyone so leave them alone.
Yeah government should not pay for this. At the same time I would like to know why those costs are so high. Average cost 4 year degree more than quadrupled in the last 20 years. Why is medicine costs so high as compared to 30 years ago. And no its not inflation the rate they have increased is way higher than inflation. I think there is a problem in both but throwing more money at it isn't the answer.
If someone wants to smoke weed, Marry the same sex, cut their pee pee off, worship a flying spaghetti monster, or a zombie Jewish man. Fine I don't care it doesn't cost money and it doesn't effect anyone so leave them alone.
quote:
free college education, socialized medicine
Yeah government should not pay for this. At the same time I would like to know why those costs are so high. Average cost 4 year degree more than quadrupled in the last 20 years. Why is medicine costs so high as compared to 30 years ago. And no its not inflation the rate they have increased is way higher than inflation. I think there is a problem in both but throwing more money at it isn't the answer.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:24 pm to CptRusty
quote:My point is that even the "no externalities" standard you have provided is your own standard, and therefore, is subjective. It sounds better to you than all other standards, but not all people agree with you, and even if all people did agree, it just means that all people agree with a singular subjective standard.
The "no externalities" thing is as close as I can approximate to an objective standard. It doesn't require any sort of subjective judgement, and hence no morality.
For example, who says that standard is better or worse than a standard that says "God says thus"? If there is no objective standard bearer that has given us this standard and said that it is the right one, then by default it's just one standard that lives in the minds of some people while not in others.
In other words, the origin of the standard is what determines whether or not it is subjective or objective. If there is no God, there are no objective standards, even religious ones. What that means is that the "no externalities" standard is on equal footing with a standard that says "might makes right".
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:25 pm to Zach
quote:
Give me an example. Go ahead and try.
there is no point you'll spin it because you're obliviously biased and closed minded in your bias. enjoy your sign off
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Some view government as a necessary means to enforce morality
They would be wrong. Morality changes from person to person
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:30 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
there is no point you'll spin it because you're obliviously biased and closed minded in your bias. enjoy your sign off
Translation: 'Zach is 20 arguments ahead of me and I don't want to look stupid.'
Very wise choice, mindbreaker.
Good night everyone. Here's a nice puppy pic till I see ya'll tomorrow.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:33 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Morality can change from person to person, but many people use their own standards for determining what the government should enforce. Many believe that we live in an actual democracy where 51% should be able to determine what moral code should be enforced.
They would be wrong. Morality changes from person to person
I have to ask... by what standard do you judge theirs as wrong?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News