RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 12:22:37 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

The land can only bare so many resources. With overpopulation, we're forced to strain more and more to pay the cost of each human; everything from environmental damage to the costs of simply those living off the system. Each person needs land to live on, land to farm and have cattle for him, air to breath, water to drink and shower with, eleectricity to use, fuel for his car, etc. In many areas of the world, we've taxed drinking water, fuel, and air beyond their limits; while many of these places have buffer reserves which are being worn down, a higher population will only make the issue worse.

I think we can all agree that there is an upper limit to how many humans it's physically possible to have on Earth, then on that it's not practical to have that many. Up to what point, though, is it worth having an additional human? I think we've passed the point where we need more people to fill out Earth; the need to populate more will increase when we move beyond Earth, but not as I see it now.

I'm not in favor of killing anyone (to include abortions), but having a means of enforcing a population limit outside of the environment naturally enforcing it on us via starvation and land disputes feels like a vital concern to me. We just can't continue plundering the land's resources like this.

(in reply to Stephann)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 12:47:41 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

To me FISCAL CONSERVATIVE means that spending and taxation are alligned so that the Government does not run up excessive debt. Reaganomics and supply side economic theory pretty much tossed the doctrine overboard.

Oddly, now it is the Democrats who are the fiscal conservatives, (to wit: Clinton-Gore.)

As for social liberals, I would put this in the GUNS OR BUTTER debate. Conservative prefer a huge military and liberals prefer a smaller, less expensive military and more emphasis on direct, general welfare spending.

I think we do a disservice to this debate by focusing on individual "hot button" issues.

I am a fiscal conservate: HATED REAGAN, HATED REAGAN-BUSH-BUSH even more. Was extremely impressed with Clinton.

I'm a social liberal: Hate to see things like the IRAQ WAR, STAR WARS, PERSHING MISSILES IN EUROPE, and crap we don't need like the B2 bomber and nuclear submarines.

I would prefer money be cut back there and put into the EPA, infrastructure, public transportation, education, health-care, of deficit reduction.

I do believe tough decisions need to be made: aka responsible budgeting and government accounting must play a key role in how money is spent.

Looking at individual issues makes any kind of rational analysis too emotional. When talking about the US Federal Government, sub issues like guns, gays, abortion, and welfare stooges merely takes everyone's eye off the ball.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 2/3/2008 1:03:38 PM >

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 1:53:47 PM

Stephann

Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The land can only bare so many resources. With overpopulation, we're forced to strain more and more to pay the cost of each human; everything from environmental damage to the costs of simply those living off the system. Each person needs land to live on, land to farm and have cattle for him, air to breath, water to drink and shower with, eleectricity to use, fuel for his car, etc. In many areas of the world, we've taxed drinking water, fuel, and air beyond their limits; while many of these places have buffer reserves which are being worn down, a higher population will only make the issue worse.

I think we can all agree that there is an upper limit to how many humans it's physically possible to have on Earth, then on that it's not practical to have that many. Up to what point, though, is it worth having an additional human? I think we've passed the point where we need more people to fill out Earth; the need to populate more will increase when we move beyond Earth, but not as I see it now.

I'm not in favor of killing anyone (to include abortions), but having a means of enforcing a population limit outside of the environment naturally enforcing it on us via starvation and land disputes feels like a vital concern to me. We just can't continue plundering the land's resources like this.

CL,

I agree; there are upper limits to population. Yet a quick look at Japan tells me that those who learn to work more closely with their fellow man are capable of sustaining a great number of people in a small amount of space, with a scarcity of resources. We haven't hit the upper limit in terms of sustainability in terms of population growth; instead we claim there's too many people crowding 'our' space, and stick our heads in the sand.

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 2:09:53 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

I guess reducing population is the easy way out of problems; I agree. I think that that's why, for a very large part, I'm so fond of it. I worry about the consquences of trying and failing at something else.

---

Hah, you know, I've spent a lot of time wondering.. (Sort of tangentially)

Say there were a world in which space was limitless; let's say we can open up worm holes to form entirely new realities with ease which humans could then populate, then those realities could then also open worm holes to yet more new realities while the previous realities were still free to do the same. That it was possible to sustainably grow a population to infinity, and that the population could continually grow at increasing rates towards infinity. For those who value life, would it then be a duty to create as many viable worlds as possible to allow as much life as possible to exist?

PS- The answer, to me, seems to be "yes". But this leads to what may be absurdity. I like questioning myself like this, so that I can find absurdities and eliminate them to make various aspects of thought into a more congruent system. I haven't yet deduced a fix for this one, though.

PPS- "Duty" may've been a poor choice of words. Stupid Chem homework keeping me from being able to think about this as I'd like. =/

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/3/2008 2:23:13 PM >

(in reply to Stephann)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 5:15:25 PM

Feric

Posts: 227
Joined: 1/9/2008
From: San Francisco
Status: offline

I don't know about the social liberal part of the deal, but a "fiscal conservative" is a catch-all term to describe somebody who refuses to spend money unless it's absolutely necessary--usually on something to do with defense or law-and-order projects like police or FBI. In a perfect world that would probably work, but the reality is that politics is about compromise. Every stone-cold reformer who's marched into Washington D.C. ringing the mission bell and saying that things are going to be different soon runs into a hard reality: to make any headway in D.C., you have to be willing to give in order to get. Those who don't play ball make enemies fast, and in the legislatural process you need friends in order to be heard. As such, the lifespan of a true fiscal conservative in D.C. politics is about three months.

_____________________________

A figure of startling and unexpected nobility...

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 5:22:51 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Once we hit a certain amount of population we won't be able to feed them anyway.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Stephann)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 6:23:25 PM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Social Liberal / Fiscal Conservative = Canadian!

Time to pack a bag and head north.

Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 7:52:44 PM

petdave

Posts: 2479
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
So then we come to everything else. I keep wondering, other than the tax dollars used to support something that is morally repugnant to Me (The Pro-Choice thing) how can someone be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? All the social programs you would seemingly support will cost more money that we don't have unless we add another tax. And that is not being fiscally conservative.

That's because increasing expenditures on social programs and wealth-redistribution schemes is the definition of "fiscal liberalism"... Social liberalism is generally used to describe the government taking a reduced role in interpersonal relations and individual choices. So the social liberal thinks that women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion (continuing your example), but deciding whether or not the government should pay for that abortion falls under one's take on fiscal matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann
I don't fit in either camp, because I don't believe in the government telling me who I can marry or why, nor do I think I should be paying for a government grant to fund the artificial insemination for the lesbian couple next door. I'm anything but moderate in my views, but because I don't align with any traditional party I have to be lumped in the derisively snarled at "Independent" class.

*cough* Libertarian *cough*

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 10:05:56 PM

AxilX

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

*cough* Libertarian *cough*

I'm glad someone beat me to it.. there's already a political party that represents people with views that the OP expressed, and yes, it's the libertarian party. I don't agree with all the entire "party line" but 90% of the time i do, and the basis for the party (in it's most simplied form) rests on two initiatives.

1.) Personal freedom should be protected at all costs.

2.) The govermnent shouldn't be doing anything that isn't absolutely nessisary for the nation to function, and that a private entity cannot effectively do.

*edited to fix formatting*

< Message edited by AxilX -- 2/3/2008 10:06:26 PM >

(in reply to petdave)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/3/2008 10:06:17 PM

Stephann

Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Once we hit a certain amount of population we won't be able to feed them anyway.

Sure. That means we'll have hit a place where it doesn't matter how much food we grow in the ocean; seaweed may not taste great, but there's lots of places to grow it.

dave,

quote:

*cough* Libertarian *cough*

Who, moi?

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/4/2008 1:48:28 AM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Who can best protect my "personal freedoms"? The the public or the private sector?

Who gets to decide what is necessary and how is that agreement reached? Seems to me that selflessly serving the needs of the nation is the theoretical yet inevitably corrupted intent of every democratic system. What's so new about that?

It's one thing to map the moral high ground but how will you defend it, in practical terms?

Just asking.

Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Stephann)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/4/2008 6:05:58 AM

petdave

Posts: 2479
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Who can best protect my "personal freedoms"? The the public or the private sector?

Nobody cares about your personal freedoms except for you.

In a free market, if a private entity infringes on your personal freedoms, you go to another seller/service provider/landlord/etc. If enough people make it clear that, for example, they won't do business with a credit card company that sells their personal information to every advertising organization under the sun, the company that respects their privacy will prosper while the others fail.

When the government does it, you either try to change things via the electoral process, or emigrate. Governmental oppression becomes entrenched far more easily than private sector oppression.

quote:

Who gets to decide what is necessary and how is that agreement reached?

Necessary for what?

If you're referring to necessary government services, in the U.S., the Constitution lays out the minimums that many libertarians believe we need to return to. The possible interpretations are almost endless, tho, so you need to give me a little more to work with here.

(in reply to Zensee)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/4/2008 6:57:55 AM

AxilX

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

There is of course some debate about what the government must nessisarily control, even amoung those in the Libertarian camp. Just as there are now three different healthcare plans in the Dems camp at the moment, and three different economic stimulus plans in the Reps camp. I think most of us can agree though that a lot of money is being spent on things that are not critical to our nations ability to function. For instance, we already function without universal heathcare.

As far as who protects your freedoms, you are right the government is responsible for protecting your freedom in many cases, Libertarians are not looking for anarchy. A police force is nessisary to protect you from those who break the law and harm you domestically, a legal system is needed to define and enforce those laws once criminals are incarcerated. A military is needed to protect our nations soverignty. However many libertarians would like to see many of these laws be relaxed. I ought to be able to own a gun without reporting it to the government. I ought to be able to let my teenage son go see a movie or buy a videogame by himself, if i choose to. As a business owner i ought to be able to choose whom i hire, and what i pay them. And as an employee i ought to be able to choose what i disclose to my employer.

I ought to be able to choose to put whatever i please into my body (not nessisarily in public, and certainetly not when using a vechile on a public road), but the taxpayers ought not have to pay to fix my body when i do somthing stupid to it. I ought to be able to choose whether or not i wear my seatbelt, but again, the taxpayers ought not have to reconstruct me at thier expense because i was smeared all over the windshield. I ought to be able to marry whoever i choose, and however many of them, but the state has no business recognizing or preforming marriages. I ought to be able to choose not to set aside any retirement money (opt out of SS) but then if i am old and can no longer work, the state ought not have to take care of me.

The list goes on and on and on. Not all the things i mentioned are representive of the entire libertarian party as i've mentioned before, but they help demonstrate the sentiment. The goverment ought provide essential services for everyone, and let them stand on thier own two feet otherwise. And yes... some will fall.

(in reply to petdave)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Social Liberal but Fiscal Conservative? - 2/4/2008 7:32:18 AM

Stephann

Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Who can best protect my "personal freedoms"? The the public or the private sector?

Neither can or will. It's not politically beneficial to protect your freedoms; to politicians, your freedoms are the things that keep criminals out of jail and terrorists on the street. It's bad business to protect your privacy; I recently registered my domain with godaddy.com. 'Hiding' my whois information carried a sur-charge to discourage it. There's a gold mine in selling your information to everyone who wants it. Much larger businesses (telecommunications and energy companies comes to mind) have an enormous stake in ensuring that 'personal' freedoms are restrained so that they can maintain an oligopoly. The people best suited to protecting my personal freedoms are me and everyone else who votes. Yet our two party system has done an excellent job of conditioning us to only vote for winners, even if we don't like them. The irony is that the vast 'silent majority' who never votes, could easily elect someone else. The tragedy, is that nobody is willing to vote for someone they don't feel can win - ensuring that they do not. I think the conducting of polls should be a federal crime carrying 10 years in prison; it taints our voting system.

Who gets to decide what is necessary and how is that agreement reached? Seems to me that selflessly serving the needs of the nation is the theoretical yet inevitably corrupted intent of every democratic system. What's so new about that?

Everyone does; again, with their votes. I'm expressing my views on how I think things should be, and will exercise that right every chance I get. Ironically, if I vote in every election, my voice will represent seven other people who don't vote too.

It's one thing to map the moral high ground but how will you defend it, in practical terms?

Currently, by standing on my soap box on the occasions I'm able. This may not be the size of a rally, but I figure if I can influence 50 people to vote the way I do, we'd represent 350 actual voters when we do. Short of that, even as I rail against what injustices I perceive, having lived in a country where there is no protection of free speech I can say I'm generally happy with the way our country works.

That doesn't mean there won't always be room for improvement .

Regards,

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to Zensee)

Profile

Post #: 34