- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: "Fiscally conservative but socially liberal"
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:08 pm to Ex-Popcorn
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:08 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Being fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" is really the only philosophically defensible position.
Unfortunately, human society refuses to conform to that philosophical ideal. Thus, the libertarian cum reactionary.
0
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:12 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
How do you not see the problem with that quoted language?
Because it's true. Are you under the impression that we have 100% agreement on our laws? People disagree on where the balance lies and they always have and they always will.
quote:
You draw your lines based on your own subjective belief of what is right and wrong.
So do you; so does everybody. I know you've convinced yourself that you've cracked the code and your beliefs are somehow objective but that's nonsense. Almost everybody in this thread recognizes it as nonsense.
quote:
And then you believe government should impose those lines because you like them.
Again, you're just stating a universal truth. You have an opinion about how much government is enough and so do I. So does everybody else. Most of them aren't delusional and recognize that their opinion about the right amount of government is indeed an opinion.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:20 pm to Flats
quote:
So do you; so does everybody.
to the extent that everyone likely has a different philosophy on ethics, yes.
But I afford a certain respect for someone that clearly states their guiding principles and uses those principles to extrapolate policy. I certainly prefer this approach to someone who would seemingly change their governing philosophy on an issue by issue basis, because such a person would come across as lacking any true conviction at best, and utterly hypocritical at worst.
The benefit of stating your guiding principles on the front end and using them consistently is you can then decide if you agree with the principles and this yields a deeper understanding for why certain behaviors ought to be tolerated. This fosters a useful conversation, unlike someone who is so beholden to the idea of moral subjectivity in which case there isn't much conversation to be had, as such a person will just twist the policy to their fancy and change their policy recommendations on a whim without much thought required.
Perhaps instead of a deeply held love of individual liberty and property rights; you cherish results and fall back to utilitarianism. Well, we can talk about the merits of utilitarianism and its potential shortcomings; but at least we can have that dialogue. Someone that just throws their hands up and says everything is subjective and we shouldn't put any value on guiding principles; well I'd just say I don't have much common ground with a such a person on a pretty fundamental level. There may be room for citing subjectivity to move the needle slightly from a set of ideals because no set of guiding principles on morality has yet seemed complete in human history, but to eschew the need for principles altogether as a result seems like a false binary.
This post was edited on 5/5/22 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:24 pm to Ross
quote:
But I afford a certain respect for someone that clearly states their guiding principles and uses those principles to extrapolate policy. I certainly prefer this approach to someone who would seemingly change their governing philosophy on an issue by issue basis, because such a person would come across as lacking any true conviction.
So...........most self-proclaimed moderates?
quote:
Someone that just throws their hands up and says everything is subjective and we shouldn't put any value on guiding principles; well I'd just say I don't have much common ground with a such a person on a pretty fundamental level.
Are you under the impression that I've argued that? I value guiding principles very much. "Subjective" isn't a bad word, it's just a reality.
ETA Forgot to address this:
quote:
This fosters a useful conversation
That's the goal. A useful conversation is NOT possible when one party says something childish (and false) like "you want to restrict liberty and I don't" or "your ideas for government are just your opinions and mine are objective fact". A person who doesn't realize that their personal values greatly impact their ideas about government cannot be reasoned with.
This post was edited on 5/5/22 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:28 pm to Ross
quote:
when they choose to put government suits and unelected bureaucrats in charge of mandating and enforcing behaviors between consenting parties that take place in private residences.
Abortions don’t involve consenting parties in private residences.
Gay marriage doesn’t involve private residences.
I think you’re confused.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:31 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
You think it means personal responsibility and faith.
This sort of shallow nonsense is what allows people to proclaim “I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
If you’re socially liberal, you’re not a conservative. It’s pretty simple.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:36 pm to Flats
quote:
So...........most self-proclaimed moderates?
maybe, I have no idea what most self-proclaimed moderates believe.
quote:
Are you under the impression that I've argued that? I value guiding principles very much. "Subjective" isn't a bad word, it's just a reality.
Not particularly, I just recall an exchange between us from a previous conversation regarding drug use I commented that it seemed arbitrary that people who exhibit a distrust of government competency and a self-proclaimed desire for government to not be involved in their lives when it came to medical decisions would all of the sudden change their opinions because it pertained to recreational drug usage.
In that exchange, I believe it was your argument that yes it is apparently a subjective line in the sand to draw, but everyone has a subjective belief system so why should this matter? If that wasn't your argument, my sincerest apologies.
But assuming that's a decent paraphrasing, I'd just respond and say that in my eyes your fundamental axioms that dictate your morals and the role of the state are subjective and based on your value system. I have no issue admitting this. However, I see a great problem when a person outlines fundamental axioms and then promotes policy that runs afoul of them and doesn't see anything wrong with this, because that's no longer an issue of subjectivity.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:38 pm to Ross
The folks in this thread shitting on libertarians should examine their own role in not only accepting, but supporting, social liberalism as it pertains to the conservative movement. A large number of people on this board have, at one point or another, wholly endorsed neoconservatism, a Trotskyist ideology sold to the American public by a group of East Coast secular Jews who despise the very people (and their beliefs) who support their movement. This has moved the Republican Party further to the left than any libertarian ever could or would.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:45 pm to Ross
quote:
In that exchange, I believe it was your argument that yes it is apparently a subjective line in the sand to draw, but everyone has a subjective belief system so why should this matter?
I doubt I said exactly that. The point I typically make is one I added to my other post after you responded so I'll just paste it here:
quote:
This fosters a useful conversation
That's the goal. A useful conversation is NOT possible when one party says something childish (and false) like "you want to restrict liberty and I don't" or "your ideas for government are just your opinions and mine are objective fact". A person who doesn't realize that their personal values greatly impact their ideas about government cannot be reasoned with.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 2:53 pm to Flats
quote:
That's the goal. A useful conversation is NOT possible when one party says something childish (and false) like "you want to restrict liberty and I don't" or "your ideas for government are just your opinions and mine are objective fact". A person who doesn't realize that their personal values greatly impact their ideas about government cannot be reasoned with.
in lieu of a longwinded reply, I'll just say you're right. Having an argument in good faith is key to accomplishing anything and childish retorts usually don't work.
your second quoted reply, it's hard to find context that would make it an argument in good faith. Your first, it could be phrased a bit more eloquently but with proper context I could see it being a valid concern if the discussion has identified liberty as a core value that needs to be maximized.
This post was edited on 5/5/22 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:03 pm to Ross
quote:
I could see it being a valid concern if the discussion has identified liberty as a core value that needs to be maximized.
But liberty in any civilization has always been weighed against social impact. Always. It's an analog issue, not digital, and the claim that "I want liberty and you don't" is an attempt to make it digital.
I don't know anybody who wants zero liberty and I don't know any anarchists who want total liberty. So when you say "maximized" I suspect you really mean "make it a big priority", which I happen to agree with. But it's going to be tempered with some other concerns, and that's where the conversation lies.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:16 pm to Ross
quote:
"your ideas for government are just your opinions and mine are objective fact"
I think you are referring to me here...and it's nowhere near what I've argued.
I'll try it again. Your ideas for what you believe government should do or shouldn't do is based entirely on your subjective opinion of things you like or don't like.
I also have subjective opinions of things I like and don't like. I just refuse to allow my personal beliefs justify government action. I like an objectively defensible position on government action. By way of example: I hate smelling smoke in a restaurant. I love not smelling smoke in a restaurant. I believe smoking bans in private businesses are absolutely aburd. Why? Because property rights...
This post was edited on 5/5/22 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:25 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
I think you are referring to me here...and it's nowhere near what I've argued.
It's exactly what you've argued. You:
quote:
Guiding principles are objective.
quote:
I'll try it again. Your ideas for what you believe government should do or shouldn't do is based entirely on your subjective opinion of things you like or don't like.
I also have subjective opinions of things I like and don't like. I just refuse to allow my personal beliefs justify government action.
You seem to be under the impression that if I don't like something I want government action taken to prohibit it. I've never said any such thing.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:28 pm to Ex-Popcorn
Guiding principle 1: Property owners can control, use, transfer or dispose of their property in any manner that does not violate the rights of others
The source of these inviolable rights of others, their basis? Where are they found? Is there a universal Tao that transcends time, geography, and cultures to serve as our template? Is there a thread of morality binding them together?
How about these? They’re fairly simple.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt do no murder.
Thou shalt not not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet.
I suspect there’s much morality in those even considering they’ve left out all the stuff about how to relate to God. Both sides of the tablet seem to go naturally hand in hand outlining a vertical relationship with the Almighty and a horizontal one with our fellow humans.
They’re not easily and successfully sundered one from the other nor picked at like a Holiday Inn smorgasbord. I’ll have some tell no lies and do no murder but let’s leave the don’t covet and no adultery right where it’s at!
I think our current social and political climate suggests this.
This is what I think Adams was getting at saying an immoral citizenry could not be governed by our Constitution.
quote:
…violate the rights of others.
The source of these inviolable rights of others, their basis? Where are they found? Is there a universal Tao that transcends time, geography, and cultures to serve as our template? Is there a thread of morality binding them together?
How about these? They’re fairly simple.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt do no murder.
Thou shalt not not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet.
I suspect there’s much morality in those even considering they’ve left out all the stuff about how to relate to God. Both sides of the tablet seem to go naturally hand in hand outlining a vertical relationship with the Almighty and a horizontal one with our fellow humans.
They’re not easily and successfully sundered one from the other nor picked at like a Holiday Inn smorgasbord. I’ll have some tell no lies and do no murder but let’s leave the don’t covet and no adultery right where it’s at!
I think our current social and political climate suggests this.
This is what I think Adams was getting at saying an immoral citizenry could not be governed by our Constitution.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:31 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
The source of these inviolable rights of others, their basis?
Be careful; I asked someone in another thread to tell me where "Natural Law" was defined and he responded with a link to dictionary.com. And he was serious.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 3:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
conservative
you keep using this word and
quote:
It’s pretty simple.
quote:
the808bass
quote:
you’re not a conservative
sorry a conservative is someone who wants small government across the board, supports teh original constitution and supports government protecting private property rights.
period. a conservative does not have to be a christian conservative who only wants their views forced onto people. thats called a liberal authortarian.
if you think otherwise you are the stupid frick in the thread, not ross and the others.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 4:34 pm to lsu777
quote:
sorry a conservative is someone who wants small government across the board, supports teh original constitution and supports government protecting private property rights.
You don’t know what a conservative is. That’s cool.
Posted on 5/5/22 at 4:39 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
A large number of people on this board have, at one point or another, wholly endorsed neoconservatism, a Trotskyist ideology sold to the American public by a group of East Coast secular Jews who despise the very people (and their beliefs) who support their movement. This has moved the Republican Party further to the left than any libertarian ever could or would.
I do agree with this.
I also have far more in common with Libertarians ideologically than any other faction. And I have no problem voting in concert with them or supporting common sense libertarian candidates.
The philosophical suicide that many atheist libertarians undertake is something I will always laugh at.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News