Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal. Is it possible?

[cockatoo]

I often hear this when people tell me their political opinions (especially middle class men), but is it actually possible to rationalise these two beliefs? 

 

For example, if you're fiscally conservative, then you believe in a low tax society and very little in the way of a welfare state, which creates more class inequality. That's surely a socially conservative result?

Edited January 28, 2023 by cockatoo

[Stimulus]

Yes, it's possible. See:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States

 

The social liberalism in these philosophies is based on individual rights rather than group outcomes (which class inequality is a measure of).

Edited January 28, 2023 by Stimulus

[ButterflyXIII]

Yes.

[byzantium]

I think it can work if you are not libertarian.  Like fiscally conservative can just mean a government that spends efficiently and makes good investments.  This is quite different than not wanting the government to spend at all.  

[BrokenMachine]

Of course, political views are far from being two oposites of 'left/right'. Also, since political views involve education, human rights, wealth distribution, urban development, resources, social stuff, geopolitics, and... basically everything, you might be conservative in some areas, liberal in others, central in others, etc

 

Also, it depends about context and time. Througout the years some stuff was seen as 'conservative stuff' and some years later it was seen as 'liberal stuff'. So basically, yeah, describing your political views as merely liberal/conservative doesn't tell the whole picture.

[ProudLBS]

that’s me

 

I think you should be allowed to buy heroin from a vending machine and overdose on it, but don’t ask me to pay for the medical bills 

Edited January 28, 2023 by ProudLBS

[Communion]

13 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

Yes, it's possible. See:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States

 

The social liberalism in these philosophies is based on individual rights rather than group outcomes (which class inequality is a measure of).

See but you have to be pedantic to get to "liberalism".  And even then, much of those who value "individual rights" suddenly have huge issues with things like letting trans people do what they want with their bodies or allowing cis women to have ownership over their wombs. Libertarians in the US prove it is NOT possible. 

 

We all know what words means and how *they actually manifest in society*.

 

Fiscal conservatism is not "efficient spending".

Socially liberal is not "emphasizing individual liberty".

 

Anyone who calls themselves this nonsense term is a rich bigot who doesn't see themselves as bigoted.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Communion

[Stimulus]

6 minutes ago, Communion said:

And even then, much of those who value "individual rights" suddenly have huge issues with things like letting trans people do what they want with with bodies or allowing cis women to have ownership over their wombs. Libertarians in the US prove it is NOT possible. 

The majority of libertarians support LGBT rights. On the other hand, libertarians are split on abortion.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Stimulus

[Communion]

16 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

The majority of libertarians support LGBT rights. On the other hand, libertatians are split on abortion.

Sis, these kinds of posts are meaningless and do not articulate what you want to say.

 

Linking to a wikipedia page because you've now had to question if Libertarians support LGBT people and can't actually provide an answer shows you're not actually sure of your original point as you once were.

 

You mentioned US Libertarians, and I mentioned how their emphasis on "individual liberty" results in illiberal and bigoted beliefs, like against groups like trans people or women (which you concede).

 

You've linked a wikipedia page that shows many Libertarian groups NOT supporting gay marriage (the pinnacle of LGBT support!) and those who do, doing so as part of their support for incest. 

 

Libertarians (particularly anarcho-capitalists, revealing that class is the root of ALL ideologies) are only "liberal" if you act, like I said, pedantic and reference definitions that are both culturally and politically out-dated. Libertarians being committed to "small government" and thus being against hate crime laws to protect LGBTQ people or being for "small government" and being for the discrimination of trans people without consequence shows why this concept of "liberal" is outdated and politically meaningless.

 

"Liberal" is a meaningless term if it can also mean being for the open harassment of trans people in public spaces because one thinks creating laws punishing misgendering or policing language is "not the government's place (and also taxation is theft)!!!".  See: Jordan Peterson calling himself once a liberal. This conversation is so 2017. The discourse settled on an answer. No one considers these spheres of ideologies "liberal" anymore.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Communion

[Stimulus]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Sis, these kinds of posts are meaningless and do not articulate what you want to say.

 

Linking to a wikipedia page because you've now had to question if Libertarians support LGBT people and can't actually provide an answer shows you're not actually sure of your original point as you once were.

 

You mentioned US Libertarians, and I mentioned how their emphasis on "individual liberty" results in illiberal and bigoted beliefs, like against groups like trans people or women (which you concede).

 

You've linked a wikipedia page that shows many Libertarian groups NOT supporting gay marriage (the pinnacle of LGBT support!) and those who do, doing so as part of their support for incest. 

 

Libertarians (particularly anarcho-capitalists, revealing that class is the root of ALL ideologies) are only "liberal" if you act, like I said, pedantic and reference definitions that are both culturally and politically out-dated. Libertarians being committed to "small government" and thus being against hate crime laws to protect LGBTQ people or being for "small government" and being for the discrimination of trans people without consequence shows why this concept of "liberal" is outdated and politically meaningless.

I link to Wikipedia because, for some topics, I like to support my posts with evidence instead of pulling claims and opinions out of thin air.

 

The US Libertarian Party explicitly endorses trans rights, so I have no idea where you are getting your information from.

[Robert]

To an extent like you can support LGBT rights or believe in defunding the police but it also ignores how most forms of inequality stems from wealth inequality and things like free healthcare or guaranteed maternity leave do shape our social values.

[Communion]

27 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

I like to support my posts with evidence

Wikipedia is an aggregator. If you'd want to provide evidence, you'd link to sources in the footer you were referencing with specific examples. Because, as already pointed out, the page you shared showed a summary not reflective of what you said.

 

In fact, most of the examples showed Libertarian parties largely supporting "gay marriage" not due to supporting gay people, but that it was not the government's place to dictate who can choose to join in a legal union of assets: man and woman, man and man, man and woman and woman, brother and sister, etc.

 

You are proving my point. The US Libertarian Party trying to brand itself as progressive with platitudes like "the government should not create laws on the basis of race, sexuality, gender or creed" isn't "liberalism" when they also mean it for laws about *protecting* minority groups discriminated for those traits. "Don't ban trans adults from doing what they want but don't make laws forcing me to treat them positively" is the shortcoming of this "liberalism".

 

Trying to cite the party as pro-trans for being against ANY laws regulating how *adults* use medication doesn't work when they also then buy into anti-trans hysteria over minors. The Libertarian Party thinks the age of consent is too high but trans minors don't deserve privacy and are their parents property?

 

Again, the only way you get to "liberalism is also the government allowing anti-trans parents to harm their children because #FREEDOM" is by thinking liberty is defined by abstract ideas of individual freedom that don't actually make sense.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Communion

[Nano]

It's basically a more polite way of saying you don't care about poor people.

[ZIVERT]

No

[Stimulus]

2 hours ago, Communion said:

Wikipedia is an aggregator. If you'd want to provide evidence, you'd link to sources in the footer you were referencing with specific examples. Because, as already pointed out, the page you shared showed a summary not reflective of what you said.

 

In fact, most of the examples showed Libertarian parties largely supporting "gay marriage" not due to supporting gay people, but that it was not the government's place to dictate who can choose to join in a legal union of assets: man and woman, man and man, man and woman and woman, brother and sister, etc.

 

You are proving my point. The US Libertarian Party trying to brand itself as progressive with platitudes like "the government should not create laws on the basis of race, sexuality, gender or creed" isn't "liberalism" when they also mean it for laws about *protecting* minority groups discriminated for those traits. "Don't ban trans adults from doing what they want but don't make laws forcing me to treat them positively" is the shortcoming of this "liberalism".

 

Trying to cite the party as pro-trans for being against ANY laws regulating how *adults* use medication doesn't work when they also then buy into anti-trans hysteria over minors. The Libertarian Party thinks the age of consent is too high but trans minors don't deserve privacy and are their parents property?

 

Again, the only way you get to "liberalism is also the government allowing anti-trans parents to harm their children because #FREEDOM" is by thinking liberty is defined by abstract ideas of individual freedom that don't actually make sense.

Like I said in my first post, classical liberalism and libertarianism in the US emphasize individual rights. A law that forces people to treat anyone "positively" would be considered overreach by not just libertarians but many other people. But libertarians oppose laws that discriminate against LGBT people (treating them "negatively"), and these laws are still a huge problem in the US and other countries.

 

Social liberalism isn't limited to individual rights, but individual rights are very much a part of social liberalism.

 

(If you don't like my links to Wikipedia, then don't click on them.)

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

Like I said in my first post, classical liberalism and libertarianism in the US emphasize individual rights.

So a 14-year-old AFAB should have the individual right to **** a 60-year-old man but not go by he/him without their parents explicit permission?  Again, I'll reiterate:

 

3 hours ago, Communion said:

definitions that are both culturally and politically out-dated.

 

--

 

This conversation is so 2017. The discourse settled on an answer. No one considers these spheres of ideologies "liberal" anymore.

 

[Distantconstellation]

3 hours ago, ProudLBS said:

that’s me

 

I think you should be allowed to buy heroin from a vending machine and overdose on it, but don’t ask me to pay for the medical bills 

Yeah u can spot the conservative here because he's always going to the most extreme example. 

[Stimulus]

16 minutes ago, Communion said:

So a 14-year-old AFAB should have the individual right to **** a 60-year-old man but not go by he/him without their parents explicit permission?  Again, I'll reiterate:

 

 

Outdated according to whom? A trans child having access to gender-affirming care is something that libertarians support. Today in the US, this is still considered a socially liberal position.

 

Requesting the pronouns you would like others to use for you is covered under freedom of speech, which is an individual right that libertarians support.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Stimulus

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

A trans child having access to gender-affirming care is something that libertarians support.

*if their parent allows them to. 

 

Quote

Requesting the pronouns you would like others to use for you is part of freedom of speech, which is an individual right that libertarians support

You are literally being shown evidence of the Libertarian Party exploiting anti-trans hysteria that trans kids are a product "of indoctrination" to help spread their "schools should be privately funded" belief. They are literally saying that teachers and students do not have a freedom of speech and that parents have a right to regulate others' speech. 

 

"Anti-trans parents should be able to deny their trans child their rights" is a "liberal" value?

Edited January 28, 2023 by Communion

[ProudLBS]

1 minute ago, Distantconstellation said:

Yeah u can spot the conservative here because he's always going to the most extreme example. 

I gave an extreme example that encompassed both liberal (drugs being legal) and conservative (self-responsibility) values.

 

The only place where I’m a conservative is on this hellhole of an echo chamber 

[Stimulus]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

*if their parent allows them to. 

 

You are literally being shown evidence of the Libertarian Party exploiting anti-trans hysteria that makes people think trans kids are "a product of indoctrination" to help spread their "schools should be privately funded" belief.

 

"Anti-trans parents should be able to deny their trans child life-saving healthcare!" is a "liberal" value?

The US "Libertarian Party" departed considerably from libertarianism after it was hijacked by the far-right Mises Caucus last year. The tweet you posted was from the Mises Caucus. What you see from that party after the takeover is far-right politics being whitewashed as libertarianism, rather than the mix of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism that the party traditionally stood for. Sad, but it's something that smaller parties are vulnerable to. The state libertarian parties that have disaffiliated from the national Libertarian Party still stand for individual rights.

 

Libertarians who follow any coherent definition of individual rights support access to gender-affirming care for trans children.

[Pepo]

It's highly hypocritical. 

 

As a leftie I would never endorse such a ridiculous way of thinking.