Hari Seldon said:

---

It is admittedly nebulous. Here's a Wikipedia to the philosophical underpinnings:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

---

I would echo RetiredAg's point here:

Quote:

---

"Human flourishing" is an entirely subjective definition, which makes it meaningless as a defense of your view of the state, as we all desire "human flourishing". We simply disagree with what that actually entails and the best way to move towards it.

---

Even if everyone on Earth agreed the purpose of life was to promote the greatest amount of human flourishing, you would get nowhere. Everyone would still disagree with what "human flourishing" even means.

I think I'm a moderate libertarian.

On economic issues, I believe the government should basically stay out of the way and respect private individuals right to contract with one another. I don't have too much of an issue with the government cracking down on fraud rather than letting the free market deal with it, because capitalism requires information flow, which can be tampered or severed. The primary "liberal" perspective I hold with respect to the role of government is that I think the government should enforce regulation that requires private organizations to consider externality costs. Drilling cheaply may be the least economically burdensome approach, but create economic waste far in excess of the costs the company itself shoulders. That leads to inefficiency. However, I think these determinations should be made by states more so than federal organizations, simply because the larger and more bureaucratic something becomes, the less capable it is of doing anything right. In summary, we need some regulation, we have way too much today, and the goal of government should be maximizing efficiency and individual economic freedom.

On foreign policy issues, I go back and forth. By and large, I think we need to place a larger burden on the rest of the world to manage its own ***** There is a time and place for intervention, but I don't know that we have the appropriate level of discretion.

On social issues, I am moderate - I think gay marriage should be legal, I think weed should be legal since alcohol is and we waste a lot of time worrying about it, and I think abortion should be illegal, which arises not out of any religious perspective but simply because that the fetus is comprised of unique genetic material and therefore isn't part of the woman the same way her hand or liver are. As it is a unique human who is biologically alive, I think it should be afforded the same rights as an infant dependant on its mother.

Ultimately, that all leads to a relatively coherent philosophy in which the government basically leaves me alone.

It doesn't strike you as convenient or incredibly coincidental that those who agree with you are logical and others aren't? I believe one of the qualifications (along with self-consciousness) for extending natural rights to all humans (but no animals) is that humans are capable of reason. Not sure what to think of humanity if almost all humans for all of human history have been irrational in this respect. Or what to think of the brilliant Western minds who similarly didn't/don't believe in natural rights. It's much too facile to say they are all irrational.

Anyway, we're at an impasse here. I'm not going to change your mind, nor did I want to argue politics. If I did I'd be on that cesspool of a politics board.

You mean the same humans that for thousands of years thought slavery and owning other humans was absolutely rational?

Those same humans included the inventors of natural rights theory and its major proponents. The NAP goes back to Locke. Strange that illogical people developed the very thing you're defending.

That's the last thing I say on this topic.

You mean the first to recognize. That's like saying newton invented gravity.

Fiscal conservative, socially not conservative.