Firstly, "the government" should BE the public; the government should not be some kind of private or exclusive group of people that make decisions outside of the public's reach, the government should be all of us: the people in society. Anything less would be oligarchic, and if you claim to care about genuine freedom and liberty, then you'd agree. This is incredibly important and you should keep this in mind, because when I say "government", I am not talking about state politicians or presidents or any bureaucratic structures of hierarchy, I am talking about everyone in society, collectively, as all governments should be.
Secondly, just to get the rest of the premises out of the way: 1) I do not believe in your made-up god, so any religious argument you attempt to make regarding so-called "god-given rights" is embarrassingly useless. There is no such thing as an inherent or natural right; rights are made up by us, and can be or not be whatever we want to include as a society. 2) We obviously do not have the same views on private property or freedom. You, as a supporter of capitalism, believe that private individuals should be allowed to buy, sell, and own society's economic means of production, and that doing so is "freedom"; whereas I, a supporter of socialism, believe that private individuals should NOT be allowed to buy, sell, or own society's economic means of production, and that doing so is the denial of others' freedom. I doubt there is anything either of us can say to each other that would change this most fundamental of personal values, so just understand that we view this premise very differently.
Thirdly, the entire purpose of a society, and quite literally the reason we came together to create civilization in the first place, is to provide for each other. We know that we can achieve more as a collective group than any one individual can achieve alone, and so we live and work together so that we can all benefit from the collective labor of each other. This is literally the sole purpose of a society. There is no point in even having a society to begin with if our own labor is not providing for the benefit of everyone. We already produce enough to provide for everyone who needs it, yet private individuals who hold exclusive ownership over the things society works to create prevent that from happening. This is not a system that is even designed to be beneficial for everyone, which is not only bad, but blatantly anti-societal. If a system does not work for the interests of the people, then it should be abolished and replaced with one that does, regardless of what traditionalist laws or values need to be overthrown.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution6mos6MO
If you do not believe in God then all you have is relative morality and might-makes-right despotism. Please explain to me why you lack faith in God and I will be glad to discuss this all-important issue with you in depth.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Morality IS relative; it is entirely subjective because we made it up. Morality is nothing more than our own personal values and opinions on any given conflict or issue. There is nothing objective about it, that's why we rely on some form of laws to determine what we as a society will or will not allow. Without any kind of mutual agreement on what will or will not be acceptable within society, that is how you end up with some kind of "wild west" every-man-for-himself nonsense, because morality is not objective and people have different morals.
As for your question, I do not hav… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Your argument is fallacious: Morality IS relative means the exact same things as "it is entirely subjective because we made it up. Morality is nothing more than our own personal values and opinion on any given conflict or issue." You were just summing your position up using different words. You've made no argument at all, nor have you answered my question.
And you have said you do not believe in God because God lacks any evidence, but that's again begging the question, you have just restated your position without providing evidence for it. This is all fallacies and circular reasoning cloaked in emotion and deceptive rhetoric.
@VulcanMan6 4mos4MO
What exactly is fallacious about stating that morality is relative? Yes, I said that morality is relative AND i also said that morality is subjective BECAUSE it's the same idea...I was literally just explaining it in more than one way. What exactly is the fallacy here? My statements mean the same thing because that is what my argument is, I simply explained it from multiple different angles: 1) morality is relative, 2) morality is subjective, and 3) morality is made up. They mean the same thing because the argument is the same: morality is not objective. What wasn't clear about that… Read more
Secondly, your claim: