Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if a party would combine fiscal conservatism with social liberalism (Essentially leaving its citizens the hell alone), it would probably do quite well.
Well, if a party would combine fiscal conservatism with social liberalism (Essentially leaving its citizens the hell alone), it would probably do quite well.
In other words, Libertarian, which last I saw, was not doing quite well.
As an afterthought,
I think fiscal conservatism and social liberalism blended together is philosophically what Libertarians see themselves as However, I distrust people who call themselves Libertarians, because I do not think they are genuine in their motivation. I see them as people who want liberty for themselves, but not for anybody else whose ambitions might conflict with theirs, and they would quickly grow weary of life in a country where libertarian principles applied to all. At the very least, they would want a wall of separation between themselves and those who seek to use their liberty to forward different objectives.
Libertarians have a general unconcern for the aggregate welfare of the society, and limit their world view to their own backyard. What happens elsewhere is of no concern to them. They have no social concept that life for everyone is enhanced with a reduction in the general population of disadvantage, penury, misery, indignity, hardship and bad luck. It never occurs to them that they themselves might be unlucky, and fall without a net. Nor do they have any sympathy for anyone else who does.
Well, if a party would combine fiscal conservatism with social liberalism (Essentially leaving its citizens the hell alone), it would probably do quite well.
Yeah, as was mentioned, check out the Libertarian party.
I don't agree with the American Libertarian party 100%, but there are other shades of Libertarianism, such as libertarian socialism, socialist anarchism, and a bunch of others. Interesting reading, but I don’t think our society has the capacity to think outside the norm of our day (two greedy, ineffectual, and ultimately failed, parties).
I am more of an Independent overall considering the options that we have today. I listened to Ron Paul speak last year and he made some interesting points. It didn't convince me to become Libertarian even though he is a Republican. I wonder if the present day Ron Paul would be classified as an 18th century Whig? (I am not sure I have the historical relevance correct on the last point).
Well, if a party would combine fiscal conservatism with social liberalism (Essentially leaving its citizens the hell alone), it would probably do quite well.
The consistency of this position is that both positions are essentially positions of relatively small government. Not as small as libertarians would support, but "small."
I happen to support this position. No party today can deliver this because the Republicans who in theory are the party of "small government" have been unable to shed their addiction to legislation of morals. Democrats might be more comfortable letting people marry who they want but they cannot seem to trust people to earn a living as they wish.
The consistency of this position is that both positions are essentially positions of relatively small government. Not as small as libertarians would support, but "small."
I happen to support this position. No party today can deliver this because the Republicans who in theory are the party of "small government" have been unable to shed their addiction to legislation of morals. Democrats might be more comfortable letting people marry who they want but they cannot seem to trust people to earn a living as they wish.
See, I agree with this. If the Libertarians offered up a spokesman or spokesman who wasn't some tweedy, professorial type with grooming issues, then they would be a much more effective group.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the support people such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul engendered, despite having the current party structure stacked against them. In fact, I think Ron Paul is probably being listened to more right now in influential circles than he even was during the election, because so much of his predictions on monetary policy have proven true.
Ron Paul is lost in the wilderness now since the election is over;15 minutes of fame.He is gerorge wallace staes rights all over again.nothing new. He is in favor of eliminating most entitlements and letting the states decide and pay for them.This would usher in the same old politiocal local machines as we saw in the past.
Hummm, it does seem like libertarianism, but it's such a broad set of philosophies that it's hard to pin down. You can have people who want to minimize government influences to outright anarchism, emphasis of the individual over the group completely, ranges from no taxes for redistribution to egalitarianism...it's hard to really say what people want to do.
Also many of the same groups try and get anyone who wants to run as thrid party to join, and I can say from experiance reading over the ballots where there were a number running you can get some really strange cookies that they put up for a choice. This really hurts the movement itself, as reading local candidates blurbs running the party were vastly inexperianced and outlandishly making things up they wanted to get done. I remember one running for the education department who was a homemaker for 40 years without kids, and wanted to disolve the fed and American military.
See, I agree with this. If the Libertarians offered up a spokesman or spokesman who wasn't some tweedy, professorial type with grooming issues, then they would be a much more effective group.
That's one of the problems with today's voters. They are too worried about 'grooming issues.' Give the voters a smile, empty words, and a flashy suit, and they will come.
Personally, I wouldn't care if the guy/gal looked like a homeless person if he/she really knew how to move the country forward, rather than nationalizing and birthing a nation of repressed tax slaves who can’t eat a hotdog without fear of jail time.
I believe the two are largely incompatible. Discuss
Social Conservatism- It is generally consists of the "traditional values" voters who prefer greater government intrustion in the personal lives of others. Social conservatism is often grounded in deeply held religious beliefs and larger family size. Social conservatives often come from "modest" financial backgrounds and impose a greater demand for basic town and city services, particularly in burgeoning suburban entities. If social conservatives want to live in mcmansion developments in suburbs they should not subsidize the costs of these developments onto the taxpayer. They should be forced to pay a specials tax added onto the property tax for living in the development. The developer should also foot the bill for the costs associated with the expansion of water, sewer, electric, etc.
Fiscal Conservatism- It is grounded in the more traditional aspects of conservatism in general. Most fiscal conservatives favor smaller government, staunch accountability of town finances, support buying land for conservation in order to keep town costs in line, and firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Many in this group are also big supporters of the 2nd ammendment as well. They are what I would call more libertarian leaning with a more stringent following of the constitution. Fiscal conservatives generally differ compared to social conservatives because they tend to be less devoutely religious with smaller family size.
I cannot agree with your definition of social conservatives at all. It seems as if you have almost reversed the fundamentals of liberal and conservative here.
It is true to say that "SC" is typified by the embrace of traditional values, however, it is patently false to claim that they prefer greater government intrusion into the personal lives of others. The reality is, for the past 30+ years, the overwhelming majority of legislative activities focusing on government regulations and mandates involving personal choices and individual liberty have been dominated by the liberal progressives.
I would cite liberal dominated California as a great example, which no one could confuse with being socially conservative. And the liberal progressives that dominate California politics and the courts are a wacky bunch indeed ... trying to follow their brand of logic is like herding cats. On the one hand, they embrace the personal liberty of medical marijuana (to the extent that they regulate it right down to the individual molecule), yet on the other, they are most hostile to the use of tobacco, which appears unworthy of personal choice. And the entire State is a conglomeration of various liberal dominated minority groups engaging in an endless contest of one-up-man-ship, each jockeying to gain legally mandated advantage over the rest of society at large. California has a law regulating almost everything .... and what they don't regulate now, they have plans for in the works. This reality would prove false your idea that it is the social conservatives who champion government intrusion, and clarify the question you presented about the compatibility between social and fiscal conservatism.
True "conservatives" embrace both a social and fiscal conservative approach, which obviously must be compatible. Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower government spending and less taxes on the fiscal side, while on social issues, conservatives believe that you do not rob from peter to give to paul ... you do not demand that an individual pay their hard earned money in order for government to redistribute that money to the "less fortunate" ... i.e. the segment of the population which perpetually make up the welfare ranks. They don't believe that government should decide what you do with your personal property or how to run your business either, such as the freedom to allow the patrons of your private establishment to sit at the bar and smoke a damned cigarette, or create quotas regarding who makes up your workforce ... or who you must provide services to.
And this situation is a microcosm of the federal agenda ... with liberals behind almost every effort to mandate personal behavior ... from the civil rights act which now seems to include the right for gay men to wear dresses to work, to the removal of "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill. Forced purchase of health care coverage is both the landmark example of the liberal agenda and the most egregious government intrusion and anti-liberty action to ever be passed into law. Wherever you find government egregiously intruding into the personal lives and choices of the people, you'll find the legislative authorization for that born of the brand of liberty promoted by liberals.
Me thinks you've got this whole idea about what constitutes "social conservatism" bass ackwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
