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.
Libertarianism seems to be really popular these days. My understanding was that it's essentially Social Liberalism + Economic Conservatism. (Economic Conservatism = pro-free market economics.)
However, we almost never see the reverse -- Social Conservatism + Economic Liberalism. Essentially, someone who could be described as pro-life and pro-family values, but prefers the school of Keynesian economics over free market economics. A social conservative who basically *supports* Social Security (in its current form) enthusiastically, and is wholeheartedly pro-Medicare (and not the Ryan form of it, either). A social conservative who opposes outsourcing and offshoring of jobs.
Where are all these kinds of ppl? I haven't met anyone like that...and it honestly surprises me. We have Liberals (liberal socially and economically), Conservatives (socially and fiscally conservative), and Libertarians (fiscally conversative, socially liberal). So why not socially conversative + economically liberal?
Why not think "outside the box"?
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 06-27-2011 at 07:30 AM..
Reason: Corrected typo
That's is more of a Latin American formulation. If you look into some of the various types of "liberation theology" espoused in previous decades, they tended to involve a combination of social/religious conservatism along with economic policies aimed at shifting some of the balance of wealth to the teeming mass of poor people who weren't part of the economic/landholding elite.
It's also a little bit like the "prairie socialism" that developed in Saskatchewan and the Canadian plains during the first half of the 20th century.
That's is more of a Latin American formulation. If you look into some of the various types of "liberation theology" espoused in previous decades, they tended to involve a combination of social/religious conservatism along with economic policies aimed at shifting some of the balance of wealth to the teeming mass of poor people who weren't part of the economic/landholding elite.
It's also a little bit like the "prairie socialism" that developed in Saskatchewan and the Canadian plains during the first half of the 20th century.
Libertarianism seems to be really popular these days. My understanding was that it's essentially Social Liberalism + Economic Conservatism. (Economic Conservatism = pro-free market economics.)
However, we almost never see the reverse -- Social Conservatism + Economic Liberalism. Essentially, someone who could be described as pro-life and pro-family values, but prefers the school of Keynesian economics over free market economics. A social conservative who basically *supports* Social Security (in its current form) enthusiastically, and is wholeheartedly pro-Medicare (and not the Ryan form of it, either). A social conservative who opposes outsourcing and offshoring of jobs.
Where are all these kinds of ppl? I haven't met anyone like that...and it honestly surprises me. We have Liberals (liberal socially and economically), Conservatives (socially and fiscally conservative), and Libertarians (fiscally conversative, socially liberal). So why not socially conversative + economically liberal?
Why not think "outside the box"?
I wouldn't say libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, libertarians think the government should have no say at the federal level with telling people who they can and can not marry and what a woman can and can't do with her own body, among other social issues. Also fiscally want to defund everything and that the government should give little to no handouts or support to anyone. They are on their own level in both views but if they fit any profile, they side mostly with strong progressive views.
This is a great interview with Paul and Nader showing this point.
Well the extreme of that sector of thinking is complete totalitarianism... that's one reason why, as it is simply a dangerous road to travel down. The USSR is actually the perfect example of this.
Well the extreme of that sector of thinking is complete totalitarianism... that's one reason why, as it is simply a dangerous road to travel down. The USSR is actually the perfect example of this.
With kind respect intended, I respectfully disagree that it is necessarily inherently totalitarian -- after all, the U.S. successfully made extensive use of Keynesian (i.e., liberal) economics during the WWII period, correct?
ETA: I re-read the above post, and noticed you had mentioned the "extreme of that sector"....my apologies, as I did not notice that language, upon first glance. Agreed that in its extreme, it can be dangerous, much like anything taken to an extreme.
To the extreme, that's totalitarianism. The government controls both what you can do and what you can own/eat.
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.
