re: Can you be fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

Uh, yeah. That is basically what a libertarian is. At least to a degree, it's a viewpoint that predominates on this board.

quote:

---

I think we are talking past each other.

---

Possibly

quote:

---

Obviously our existing government has become a bloated gigantic morality enforcement machine.

---

Yep, but all government are in some ways or others.

quote:

---

I am saying that from a Libertarian perspective, this form of government is unacceptable and completely unnecessary.

---

Even Libertarians have to have a basis for human rights and why they should be protected by a government.

quote:

---

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.

---

I figured as much but I thought I'd mention our government specifically just in case.

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.

quote:

---

True, but they do not need to be rooted in something as subjective as morality.

---

My point is that unless their is an objective standard, all other standards have to be subjective by necessity.

quote:

---

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

---

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?

quote:

---

but point being that no subjective view of right and wrong, and certainly no religious view of the same, is necessary.

---

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 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.

quote:

---

but it really isn't possible from a logical standpoint.

---

explain

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

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.

quote:

---

so your judeo-christian god is the only one of the thousands of deities on this planet that cracked the nut on inalienable rights?

---

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.

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:

---

Ya, I do. It's called a natural right. God is irrelevant.

---

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.

quote:

---

This part is correct

---

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.

quote:

---

This is you imposing your religious beliefs.

---

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.

quote:

---

I have done just that already in this very thread.

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.