Is That A Jackalope In Your Pocket Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

[undertheice]

how many times have you heard some otherwise rational person calmly state that they are a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? how can such a creature be possible? they are essentially saying that they are proponents of the welfare state, but opposed to any way to fund it. a contradiction like this would seem to be acceptable only in the mentally deficient. the only reason i can find for making such an outrageous claim is that these supposedly intelligent folks think that government is somehow capable of providing services through magic. maybe someone else can come up with another explanation.

 

[beardo]

I agree we can not provide services for free and anyone who want's this to happen is mentally deficient. Their are a lot of people who think that way. I think we have plenty of funding and do not need tax increaces, I think we need HUGE spending cuts. I also think many services should operate like buisnesses and have you pay for the service instead of having it covered by taxes

 

[fdd2blk]

wtf is with all the labeling?

i'm pretty sure people are individual. you may agree with almost everything other people say, but no two people will ever agree on everything.


label me, label you.

 

[undertheice]

wtf is with all the labeling?

we all use labels every day. there's no denying it. we label those around us to determine how best to deal with them and whether or not they are a threat and, most importantly, we label ourselves to signify our ideologies and intentions. it's this latter sort of labeling that my original post refers to. i've read several articles recently making the claim that such a creature is possible and i've often heard people label themselves as such. i'm just curious how people can justify taking such a contradictory stance.

 

[fdd2blk]

i don't believe people should be told how they are expected to feel simply because they belong to a certain "group".

i tend NOT to label myself or others.

 

[UncleBuck]

how many times have you heard some otherwise rational person calmly state that they are a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? how can such a creature be possible? they are essentially saying that they are proponents of the welfare state, but opposed to any way to fund it. a contradiction like this would seem to be acceptable only in the mentally deficient. the only reason i can find for making such an outrageous claim is that these supposedly intelligent folks think that government is somehow capable of providing services through magic. maybe someone else can come up with another explanation.

so, if i am "socially liberal", that automatically makes me a "proponent of the welfare state"?

can't i just support a woman's right to privacy and control of her own body, completely equal rights for homosexuals and lgbtqq people, ongoing civil rights for discriminated minorities, mosques near or even on ground zero and legalization of pot without being a proponent of the welfare state? or is that not allowed to exist in your silly little world?

are we all supposed to fit into the casts you make for us?

are you calling me mentally deficient? that is not nice.

you have made some horrible assumptions and sweeping generalizations in your post. please correct them.

 

[undertheice]

can't i just support a woman's right to privacy and control of her own body, completely equal rights for homosexuals and lgbtqq people, ongoing civil rights for discriminated minorities, mosques near or even on ground zero and legalization of pot without being a proponent of the welfare state? or is that not allowed to exist in your silly little world?

maybe you don't understand the concept, so i'll spell it out for you. behind the concept of social liberalism is the basic idea that it is government that is responsible for the welfare of the people, seeing that all are properly fed, clothed and housed. this is the very essence of "the welfare state". though there are certainly components of the conservative movement that oppose many of the issues on your list, every one of them is well within the scope of social conservatism. they are all a matter of protecting the rights of the individual against the biases of others, one of government's prime duties under any ideology.

the sweeping generalizations seem to be yours. could it be that many of those who view themselves as socially liberal are simply as ill-informed as yourself?

 

[UncleBuck]

could it be that many of those who view themselves as socially liberal are simply as ill-informed as yourself?

i simply asked why my support of socially liberal positions such as a woman's constitutionally-protected right to privacy, truly equal rights for lgbtqq people, ongoing civil rights for discriminated minorities, and support for cannabis legalization entailed that i believe the government is responsible to feed, clothe, and shelter the populace.

instead of answering that directly, you chose to insult me instead.

you also tried to turn social conservatism into social liberalism and put your own spin on what social liberalism is. nice try, but i still can't find many social conservatives who want the same things i do for women, minorities, and lqbtqq people.

 

[undertheice]

.....instead of answering that directly, you chose to insult me instead.

if you consider being called ill-informed to be an insult, i suggest you grow a thicker skin. for each term there is an acceptable meaning, that's what this whole thread is about. merely embracing a few of the tenets of an ideology does not entitle one to wear the badge of the whole.

you also tried to turn social conservatism into social liberalism and put your own spin on what social liberalism is. nice try, but i still can't find many social conservatives who want the same things i do for women, minorities, and lqbtqq people.

the spin certainly isn't mine. however, the values that you seem to ascribe to conservatism are a bit skewed. there is certainly a very vocal segment of conservatism that subscribes to the reactionary fundament that is the stereotype of the conservative population, but there is also a vast number who's beliefs are far more basic. these are the people of conservatism, not the self-appointed spokesmen, religious zealots and single-issue driven organizations. they advocate the protection of individual rights above the society's desires for equality as the prime duty of government and deny the state's role as supreme arbiter of social justice.

 

[UncleBuck]

if you consider being called ill-informed to be an insult, i suggest you grow a thicker skin.

despite your insults, you still have not told me why my support for the socially liberal lgbtqq issues, civil rights, and feminism entail my support for the government to food, clothe, and shelter the populace as a whole.

thread fail.

 

[undertheice]

despite your insults, you still have not told me why my support for the socially liberal lgbtqq issues, civil rights, and feminism entail my support for the government to food, clothe, and shelter the populace as a whole.

are you being purposely obtuse or just stubbornly contrary? i never made any such claim. the thread was about those who claim social liberalism (a term for which there is an accepted definition) and fiscal conservatism (another term for which there is an accepted definition). you were the one who claimed the mantle of the former. either get with the program or hijack the thread to some other purpose, i'm done playing this silly game with you.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I'm not one of those who claim to be socially Liberal, yet fiscally Conservative; but I understand what people mean when they self-identify as such.

In fact, conventional wisdom says I probably mislabel myself by calling myself a Conservative.

"Socially Liberal" implies an attitude that has more to do with freedom and civil liberties. To me, at least.

Abortion, cannabis re-legalization, flag-burning (AKA Free speech), and separation of church and state are all good examples.

While fiscally Conservative implies a desire to rein in government spending via limited government. Welfare, deficit spending, the national debt, ObamaCare, and Social Security all seem to be fiscal issues. Again, to me at least.

 

[poonjoon]

don't bother with uncle buck...it's really a waste of time, check the global warming thread..he's like that in most of his posts.

as for the original question..it's funny how "social liberalism" evolved out of liberalism in the 20th century. and it's even funnier when paired with the notion "fiscally conservative". these people have a misunderstanding of the very concepts they tout to be supporting but all in good heart.

 

[undertheice]

.....fiscally Conservative implies a desire to rein in government spending via limited government. Welfare, deficit spending, the national debt, ObamaCare, and Social Security all seem to be fiscal issues. Again, to me at least.

but every facet of government is both fiscal and social, the two cannot be separated. for every social program there must be funding and every economic action has social consequences. welfare, obamacare and social security are all costly liberal social programs that must be funded by equally liberal taxation and spending. the bureaucracies involved alone are of staggering expense and the services rendered are well within the sphere of private enterprise. the rights of free speech, ownership of self and the sovereignty of religious belief are all basic social rights guaranteed by the constitution their only cost is in their protection and this is the traditional duty of any government. while spending beyond our means is, strictly speaking, a fiscal concern, its social implications, irresponsible governance and a debt passed on to our children, can't be ignored. in most of these issues it would seem obvious where the interests of fiscal conservatism lie and that certainly isn't with liberal social policy.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

but every facet of government is both fiscal and social, the two cannot be separated. for every social program there must be funding and every economic action has social consequences. welfare, obamacare and social security are all costly liberal social programs that must be funded by equally liberal taxation and spending. the bureaucracies involved alone are of staggering expense and the services rendered are well within the sphere of private enterprise. the rights of free speech, ownership of self and the sovereignty of religious belief are all basic social rights guaranteed by the constitution their only cost is in their protection and this is the traditional duty of any government. while spending beyond our means is, strictly speaking, a fiscal concern, its social implications, irresponsible governance and a debt passed on to our children, can't be ignored. in most of these issues it would seem obvious where the interests of fiscal conservatism lie and that certainly isn't with liberal social policy.

I do not disagree, which is why I call myself a Conservative. One cannot have Conservative without conserve.

I simply understand why people might self-apply the "fiscally Conservative/socially Liberal" appellation.

While the two may be intertwined, they are also distinguishable.

 

[UncleBuck]

are you being purposely obtuse or just stubbornly contrary? i never made any such claim.

neither. i am asking you a straightforward question.

you made this claim in the op:

...fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? how can such a creature be possible? they are essentially saying that they are proponents of the welfare state

you claim that if a, then (essentially) b, whereas:

a: i am socially liberal
b: i want the government to food, clothe, and house every bum in the US of A.

so please answer, for the Nth time, how does a (essentially) entail b?

PS - cool new avatar, johnnyo. we should all learn to speak tea bag, despite that it will be DEAD language in 5 years or so

 

[NoDrama]

i simply asked why my support of socially liberal positions such as a woman's constitutionally-protected right to privacy, truly equal rights for lgbtqq people, ongoing civil rights for discriminated minorities, and support for cannabis legalization entailed that i believe the government is responsible to feed, clothe, and shelter the populace.

instead of answering that directly, you chose to insult me instead.

you also tried to turn social conservatism into social liberalism and put your own spin on what social liberalism is. nice try, but i still can't find many social conservatives who want the same things i do for women, minorities, and lqbtqq people.

You keep talking about things that are "Constitutional", but in case you haven't heard we don't use that document anymore. The politicians are making all the rules as we go along.

 

[NoDrama]

IMO you have all these people that are completely confused and do actually think that government can fix things, can pay for things and actually produces something. Dare I say government produces nothing and in fact for you to get any kind of service it must be forcefully extracted from someone else. Wealth distribution is just a code word for stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, of course the politicians always color it as the exact opposite.

 

[undertheice]

how does a (essentially) entail b?

look up the term "social liberalism". you will find that its tenets include the insistence that one of government's duties is to indulge the public in all those social programs that have traditionally been the domain of the individual and the private sector in general. seeing to the education of our children, supporting the poor and the elderly, controlling every aspect of the services we have become accustomed to and essentially being the safety net for society. it considers the state as a proper replacement for family, community and charity.

this tidbit (i know it's from wikipedia, but they are concise if not wholly accurate) is the best short version i've found and a relatively proper condensation of many other definitions i've looked into:

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for the state in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

 

[undertheice]

Wealth distribution is just a code word for stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, of course the politicians always color it as the exact opposite.

whichever direction the state claims to be distributing the wealth, we can only be sure that the lion's share will end up somewhere it doesn't belong. pork barrel projects siphon away huge portions of the general fund and the special funds are routinely looted to make up the shortfall. massive bureaucracies are built to oversee what private sector companies could manage with a single department. the denizens of these fiefdoms claim poverty at every turn and public service as their goal, but even the most gross incompetence isn't grounds for dismissal and their retirements are lavish by anyone's description. when government turns from its proper role of general management to start micromanaging our daily lives, the only ones who can ever profit are those controlling the purse strings.