hmmm... So you state that the objective definition of (big-government social) issues is
"Programs which require trans-state funding and/or enforcement in order to effect a societal or political change to the benefit of the government."
Again now -referring to your self declared "logical" post #209:
"3) Assertion A(2) = (big-government social) issues where libertarians disagree with social conservatives are less important than the (small-government economic) issues where libertarians and conservatives are on the same page."
The obvious question -how does one limit government without limiting what government imposes upon society and forces society to fund?
I would contend that true and authentic conservatives realize that morality is best defined by society in the free market of ideas. Just like the free market economy we as well have a free market morality where value in both cases is determined by particpants and NOT imposed by government...
Liberatarians are quite lacking in the moral regard suggesting as you do that it is not important -in essence government moral tyranny is quite okay as long as you can do your own "thing"...
I would contend that true and authentic conservatives realize that morality is best defined by society in the free market of ideas. You're a secular humanist then, and have no idea what conservatives or Libertarians think, and so should excuse yourself from this subject until you learn something about it.
Libertarians are quite lacking in the moral regard suggesting as you do that it is not important -in essence government moral tyranny is quite okay as long as you can do your own "thing"...
That's simply too wrong and too exceptionally ignorant on too many levels to bother refuting.
I'm afraid your attempt at moral superiority by making Libertarians into bogeymen based on your misunderstanding of their philosophy has turned out to be a large helping of fail.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.