Socially liberal, economically conservative

[Zephyrus055]

I'm just wondering if anyone considers themselves economically conservative and socially liberal. By economically conservative, I mean you generally trust the free market, think people should be allocated by their merits, and think the best economic policy is for government to not generally intervene in the economy. By socially liberal, I mean you believe in social investments to create equal opportunity (like education) and you are generally permissive of what people do with their lives. You aren't offended by homosexuals, you believe in equal rights for all races and genders, you agree with abortion and you don't care about imposing restrictions on people's sexual lives (like abstinence education and encouraging marriage) and that sort of thing.

For those of you who do consider your political affiliation this way, what ways might you differ on some issues (are you conservative on a few social issues but liberal on most?), what ways might you consider being socially liberal or economically conservative differently, and what party do you generally vote for?

[Lurker]

I'm socially liberal and economically liberal. You guys are libertarian types. *sneers*

[Anonymous]

I'm socially liberal and economically liberal. You guys are libertarian types. *sneers*

Yeah, me too. Screw the free market.

[Oso Mocoso]

For those of you who do consider your political affiliation this way, what ways might you differ on some issues (are you conservative on a few social issues but liberal on most?), what ways might you consider being socially liberal or economically conservative differently, and what party do you generally vote for?

I think the Republican party is simply broken. I would not consider voting for a Republican for any reason that I can think of. They're socially conservative, which I disagree with, and they're economically better than the Democrats on some issues, but ridiculous enough on other issues to turn me off. The party of personal freedoms and small government has a long way to go to get back to their root strengths. If the party were remade in more of a Goldwater image, I'd sign up in a second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_republican

[Yorick]

EC/SL seems so mainstream now, at least among the educated. I am C with a capital... C. That is right. Revile me. :smooch:

[ciphersort]

EC/SL seems so mainstream now, at least among the educated. I am C with a capital... C. That is right. Revile me. :smooch:

Mo like pity. :)

But hey, people change... you still have a chance.

[Oso Mocoso]

Yeah, me too. Screw the free market.

In Soviet Russia, the free market screws you! (it's funny because it's true)

[Trentham]

I am a full believer in the free market, nearly to the point of anarchism. I believe in as little government intervention in the market as possible. I believe that taxes beyond those to maintain basic services such as transportation and the military are theft.

I believe that only force, fraud and criminal negligence should be punished. Therefore, I do not support laws criminalizing drug use, prostitution or any other sexual practice. I am not offended by anyone who lives peacefully and without malice or direct harm toward others. Furthermore I believe there is no such thing as the "right to not be offended." The legislation of personal morality (outside the bounds of force/fraud/criminal negligence) is a palpable evil to me. My sole exception to the commonly-held beliefs of social liberals is an aversion to late-term abortion. If a child can survive on its own outside the womb, the abortion of said child is murder, in my opinion.

As far as my voting preference, I rarely vote given the choice of available candidates. Ron Paul was the only US Presidential candidate I supported in the last election. I support neither the Republican nor Democratic parties, as I believe neither has the best interests of this country in mind and are in fact two sides of the same coin.

[Yorick]

I think the Republican party is simply broken. I would not consider voting for a Republican for any reason that I can think of. They're socially conservative, which I disagree with, and they're economically better than the Democrats on some issues, but ridiculous enough on other issues to turn me off. The party of personal freedoms and small government has a long way to go to get back to their root strengths. If the party were remade in more of a Goldwater image, I'd sign up in a second.

/agree

As someone who was in politics on the Hill, I saw first-hand how the Republicans decided to ditch the principles that got their base fired up during the Revolution and on through the second W election. The thing I laugh at is pundits calling for the new Republican party to "move toward the center" in order to appeal to their constituency. BS. With regard to Republicans, a moderate background has never been a winning strategy (just ask Sen. McCain - and do not tell me he was "hard-right"). After the last administration demonstrated no fiscal restraint, the Republicans lost serious political capital.

[Yorick]

Mo like pity. :)

But hey, people change... you still have a chance.

Yup, I think what I need is a good dose of hope/change. I think you are right to pity me - alas! My people are in the wilderness once again.

[Etherealsage]

With regard to Republicans, a moderate background has never been a winning strategy (just ask Sen. McCain - and do not tell me he was "hard-right").
Sadly, that's what would have made him a decent president. I think the whole Palin issue is what really screwed up his chances. So many people I know voted Obama just because they were afraid McCain was going to kick the bucket in office, leaving Palin as our stand in.

[pangolin]

I am a full believer in the free market, nearly to the point of anarchism. I believe in as little government intervention in the market as possible. I believe that taxes beyond those to maintain basic services such as transportation and the military are theft.

I believe that only force, fraud and criminal negligence should be punished.

Punishing force, fraud and criminal negligence are what amount to Regulation.
Therefore you are not a full believer in the free market.

[Trentham]

Punishing force, fraud and criminal negligence are what amount to Regulation.
Therefore you are not a full believer in the free market.

OK, I am almost nearly completely absolutely a believer in teh free market.

fkn intps :stupid:

[pangolin]

OK, I am almost nearly completely absolutely a believer in teh free market.

fkn intps :stupid:

Almost believing in the free market is not believing in the free market. :devil:

At any rate, I think it is valid to believe in the notion that competition produces a larger variety of outcomes and subsequently more likely the best outcome(s) [this is evolution, btw]. But, there are a number of things that are upheld by people espousing free markets, or at least fiscal conservatism, that are in fact bad for competition, including monopolies and patents/copyrights and such. Now, patents/copyrights are ok as far as "preventing fraud" goes [i.e. not being able to claim that your product is a brand that it is not], but otherwise somewhat harmful, as they prevent relatively minor but otherwise potentially significant modifications [i.e. mutation], and basically require [punctuated equilibrium].

[Trentham]

At any rate, I think it is valid to believe in the notion that competition produces a larger variety of outcomes and subsequently more likely the best outcome(s) [this is evolution, btw]. But, there are a number of things that are upheld by people espousing free markets, or at least fiscal conservatism, that are in fact bad for competition, including monopolies and patents/copyrights and such. Now, patents/copyrights are ok as far as "preventing fraud" goes [i.e. not being able to claim that your product is a brand that it is not], but otherwise somewhat harmful, as they prevent relatively minor but otherwise potentially significant modifications [i.e. mutation], and basically require [punctuated equilibrium].
Agreed, patents are be a lousy way to uphold competition. Aside from the minor mutations factor, they can also enable inefficient/inferior/lazy producers to control the market, which can adversely affect any number of factors.

I dabbled with full-blown anarchy for a number of years before concluding that even as inefficient as many current government systems are, private solutions (private military/police, toll roads on every corner) would likely be no more efficient and in fact might be even less so. I've yet to see a convincing argument that says otherwise.

[Cupid stunt]

Politicians work for ridiculously rich people who control the media and own large shares in many large corporations. Obama is working for the same people Bush was and it's not the American people.

[Chunes]

I am absolutely socially liberal.

But when it comes to economics, it's either all or nothing. Hardcore libertarianism and planned economies both make more sense to me than what we have now, which is a farce. It would be a huge mistake to classify our current economic system as being 'in between' those two on some sort of spectrum—there is our farce, and then there is that economy which at least attempts to deal the concept of scarcity.

I do not agree with economics run amok as in libertarianism, but still find it more desirable than the current red-tape-is-inversely-proportional-to-your-bank-account economy which literally makes it harder to increase your wealth the poorer you are. At least within libertarianism, the poor could attempt to make a buck without all the red tape.

As for me personally I prefer not to touch vile money. I am anti-consumerist and advocate minimalism, but fully recognize this is not a societal fix—only a personal one. For those people who will want their toys, I readily admit that I cannot think of a favorable alternative to consumerism (the planned economy suffers from the committee syndrome, wherein the inevitable question is raised who decides who gets what? to which I cannot as yet give a suitable answer), even though I readily denounce it. If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm okay with that.

[Lee]

I'm a classical liberal in the Hayekian mould. In short, my position on almost every policy is libertarian, but my reasons for those positions usually differs.

[Huston]

Punishing force, fraud and criminal negligence are what amount to Regulation.
Therefore you are not a full believer in the free market.

Really? Force, fraud and coercion are not part to be a part a free-market. Although.. maybe I should focus more on the punishment part... or you should focus less it! :mellow:

[Huston]

If classical liberalism is economic conservatism, I protest!

[Faust06]

I am absolutely socially liberal.

But when it comes to economics, it's either all or nothing. Hardcore libertarianism and planned economies both make more sense to me than what we have now, which is a farce. It would be a huge mistake to classify our current economic system as being 'in between' those two on some sort of spectrum—there is our farce, and then there is that economy which at least attempts to deal the concept of scarcity.

I do not agree with economics run amok as in libertarianism, but still find it more desirable than the current red-tape-is-inversely-proportional-to-your-bank-account economy which literally makes it harder to increase your wealth the poorer you are. At least within libertarianism, the poor could attempt to make a buck without all the red tape.

As for me personally I prefer not to touch vile money. I am anti-consumerist and advocate minimalism, but fully recognize this is not a societal fix—only a personal one. For those people who will want their toys, I readily admit that I cannot think of a favorable alternative to consumerism (the planned economy suffers from the committee syndrome, wherein the inevitable question is raised who decides who gets what? to which I cannot as yet give a suitable answer), even though I readily denounce it. If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm okay with that.

Nice post. Minimalism is a loose term though, isn't it? We all depend on some technology, and amuse ourselves with products one way or another.

I'll say I'm social liberal (to an extent) and definitely economically libertarian-ish. I think the government is essential, and nothing can replace it in terms of dealing with some key things, but it definitely has to be limited. Let it take care of healthcare, education, waste management, policing (no welfare)... something like that.

For everything else, free market all the fucking way.

[ciphersort]

idealistically anarchist anti-ismist

realistically:

1) I vote against all incumbent judges (unless they are known for supporting legalization/decriminalization... none are in my area that I know of... so out they go)
2) I vote against the politician I perceive will have the greatest concentration of power if elected

Ahh who I am kidding, I haven't actually done any of that in years.

[scotths]

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to focus on what would be the ideal state of the nation of a long period of time. ie .. What governmental system is selected would allow the most innovation, freedom, opportunity etc.

Does any of this change as a result if the current state of the country? As much as I might like individual freedom from an economic standpoint, we seem to me to face problems that can't be solved by individuals and that the free market is unlikely to address. It is as if the very foundation of our society and infrastructure needs to be reassembled and the free market left to its own devices is unlikely to do this.

There has been much debate on the issue of global warming, but perhaps peak oil is a more serious concern and one that isn't debated as much. Most everyone agrees that oil supply will peak world wide, the only real question is when. Optimists see the peak on the order of decades from now, pessimists believe we may have peaked already. A worldwide peak in oil production could lead to a world wide shortage of oil and cause prices to rise so drastically and so fast that the market left to its own devices will likely not be able to allow for the implementation of alternatives in time to avert catastrophe. We'll move rapidly from most alternatives being too expensive to bring to market, to alternatives being needed but not available.

To me it seems that government needs to slowly put pressure on society, slowly ramp up the cost of fossil fuels so when the spike does come it isn't nearly as big of a shock. The alternative seems to me like disbanding our military until a large nation attacks us then trying to build and train the entire system while war is beginning. Most everyone agrees that maintaining a powerful military for our protection is a good idea because it is something individuals and the state are unable to do effectively. Why would protecting us from future economic collapse that could decimate our economy and starve our people any different? Can we assert ideological positions if they could cause great damage in a time such as this?

[lowtech redneck]

I don't like the Americanized terms, but in terms of common usage that more or less describes me. I prefer the terms "classical liberal" and "liberal-conservative". My heroes are Edmund Burke, James Madison, J.S. Mill, and F. A. Hayek. I always vote Republican for either President or Senate, as I view the whole "living document" concept in Constitutional jurisprudence to be an utter abomination, the struggle against which takes precedence over all other issues. In the long-term, the means matter more than the ends (as far as domestic policy is concerned).

I also admire the late Barry Goldwater, though I personally view the militant P.C. brigade to be far more annoying and potentially repressive than the religious right.

[scotths]

I always vote Republican for either President or Senate, as I view the whole "living document" concept in Constitutional jurisprudence to be an utter abomination, the struggle against which takes precedence over all other issues. In the long-term, the means matter more than the ends (as far as domestic policy is concerned).
.

I'm not sure I understand the opposition here. When the constitution was signed we were a nation of large plantations (in the south) and middle class farmers and artisans (in the north). A town or plantation could be cut off from the rest of society and still likely produce the basics it would need to survive. The world of today is quite different. Like it or not there is a huge level of interdependence. Most people have nothing to do with the production of food or other essential goods and depend upon its presence in local markets. The production and distribution infrastructure depends upon affordable fuel and other basic goods. A break down of this could be catastrophic. If a town or community was cut off from the world today a very high probability would exist of starvation and little option would exist for individuals to save themselves.

With a world this different from the world in which the constitution was written it seems ridiculous to me that we could continue to interpret the constitution in the exact same way it was interpreted over 200 years ago.

In addition to the above, we have an increased understanding of people, science, societies and other aspects of the world that would seem likely to lead to changes in interpretation to eliminate inconsistencies between our world view and previous interpretations.

Neglecting all this I would also think that some aspects of the constitution probably didn't play out the way the founding fathers intended, in some cases requiring changes. For instance they didn't foresee the existence of political parties and built an electoral college system designed with the idea that most times the electors wouldn't agree on a candidate and that the house and senate would be most often selecting a new President. The electoral college process would essentially simply identify the list of people they could chose from. The existence of political parties has led to the political system functioning in quite a different way than the founding fathers intended, but for the most part a working system emerged.

Lastly a growing and changing interpretation of the constitution is consistent with the English and American tradition of common law which recognizes the need for law to change over time as it interacts with real world situations.

[lowtech redneck]

I'm not sure I understand the opposition here. When the constitution was signed we were a nation of large plantations (in the south) and middle class farmers and artisans (in the north). A town or plantation could be cut off from the rest of society and still likely produce the basics it would need to survive. The world of today is quite different. Like it or not there is a huge level of interdependence. Most people have nothing to do with the production of food or other essential goods and depend upon its presence in local markets. The production and distribution infrastructure depends upon affordable fuel and other basic goods. A break down of this could be catastrophic. If a town or community was cut off from the world today a very high probability would exist of starvation and little option would exist for individuals to save themselves.

With a world this different from the world in which the constitution was written it seems ridiculous to me that we could continue to interpret the constitution in the exact same way it was interpreted over 200 years ago.

In addition to the above, we have an increased understanding of people, science, societies and other aspects of the world that would seem likely to lead to changes in interpretation to eliminate inconsistencies between our world view and previous interpretations.

Neglecting all this I would also think that some aspects of the constitution probably didn't play out the way the founding fathers intended, in some cases requiring changes. For instance they didn't foresee the existence of political parties and built an electoral college system designed with the idea that most times the electors wouldn't agree on a candidate and that the house and senate would be most often selecting a new President. The electoral college process would essentially simply identify the list of people they could chose from. The existence of political parties has led to the political system functioning in quite a different way than the founding fathers intended, but for the most part a working system emerged.

Lastly a growing and changing interpretation of the constitution is consistent with the English and American tradition of common law which recognizes the need for law to change over time as it interacts with real world situations.

I''ll link you to a thread on the sister site to INTPc where I've already addressed arguements in favor of the "living document" paradigm (yeah, I'm lazy).

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/16518-souter-retirement.html

[Faust06]

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to focus on what would be the ideal state of the nation of a long period of time. ie .. What governmental system is selected would allow the most innovation, freedom, opportunity etc.

Does any of this change as a result if the current state of the country? As much as I might like individual freedom from an economic standpoint, we seem to me to face problems that can't be solved by individuals and that the free market is unlikely to address. It is as if the very foundation of our society and infrastructure needs to be reassembled and the free market left to its own devices is unlikely to do this.

There has been much debate on the issue of global warming, but perhaps peak oil is a more serious concern and one that isn't debated as much. Most everyone agrees that oil supply will peak world wide, the only real question is when. Optimists see the peak on the order of decades from now, pessimists believe we may have peaked already. A worldwide peak in oil production could lead to a world wide shortage of oil and cause prices to rise so drastically and so fast that the market left to its own devices will likely not be able to allow for the implementation of alternatives in time to avert catastrophe. We'll move rapidly from most alternatives being too expensive to bring to market, to alternatives being needed but not available.

To me it seems that government needs to slowly put pressure on society, slowly ramp up the cost of fossil fuels so when the spike does come it isn't nearly as big of a shock. The alternative seems to me like disbanding our military until a large nation attacks us then trying to build and train the entire system while war is beginning. Most everyone agrees that maintaining a powerful military for our protection is a good idea because it is something individuals and the state are unable to do effectively. Why would protecting us from future economic collapse that could decimate our economy and starve our people any different? Can we assert ideological positions if they could cause great damage in a time such as this?

Well, that's the thing. The free market can only help with environmental problems by selling/marketing certain products. The environment has to be maintained by the government, because even though it's in our favor to maintain it, in terms of business people don't have the foresight to care about that sort of thing. It's only "lets make money NOW and not worry about what happens later".

Government intervention concerning the environment is kind of a must.

[CheeZ]

I''ll link you to a thread on the sister site to INTPc where I've already addressed arguements in favor of the "living document" paradigm (yeah, I'm lazy).

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/16518-souter-retirement.html

INTPc has a sister site?

Wait. Typologycentral is INTPc's sister site?

How are the two related?

[Faust06]

Check the very top of this webpage. I always thought it was MBTIcentral, but I guess not.

[C.J.Woolf]

Check the very top of this webpage. I always thought it was MBTIcentral, but I guess not.
Typology Central was once called MBTI Central, but the name was changed to prevent a claim of trademark infringement (or something like that).

[CheeZ]

Check the very top of this webpage. I always thought it was MBTIcentral, but I guess not.

Jeez. Apparently I haven't looked at the top of an INTPc page in quite some time.

Reminds me of the shock of noticing Distraction Tactics' Public Service Announcement, which had apparently been there for months before I saw it.

[Faust06]

I have a question. Is there a better name for a political ideology that's social liberal and economic conservative? Because I haven't heard of it.

The list of political parties in Canada is a bleak one. There is a libertarian one, though.

[Trentham]

I have a question. Is there a better name for a political ideology that's social liberal and economic conservative? Because I haven't heard of it.

The closest I've found is "libertarian," emphasis on the lowercase l, not to be confused with the Libertarian Party. Not perfect, but I don't know of anything more concise.

[ocop]

I generally trend EC and am staunchly SL. My voting patterns have been Democrat nationally, libertarian locally so they might actually win something and shake local politics up a little. I don't think I will ever vote for a republican until they drop the religious conservatism, domestic xenophobia, and foaming-at-the-mouth neoconservative foreign policy.

That said I find the naively idealistic views held by most Libertarians to be horrifying (big L). My preference is for a realistic/utilitarian bent in my government... I was hung up on by a Ron Paul volunteer when I interrupted his anti cap-and-trade fund raising pitch with a discussion of the internalization of environmental externalities.