DiscussMormonism.com

blah.

One cannot, with serious intellectual coherence, be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. The two regions of the human condition, politics, political economy, and the sociocultural effects and conditions that condition and drive political policy, are far too tightly interwoven for that.

Doesn't work.

Droopy wrote:One cannot, with serious intellectual coherence, be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. The two regions of the human condition, politics, political economy, and the sociocultural effects and conditions that condition and drive political policy, are far too tightly interwoven for that.

I disagree. "Fiscal conservative and social liberal" is what a "Libertarian" is.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Droopy wrote:One cannot, with serious intellectual coherence, be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. The two regions of the human condition, politics, political economy, and the sociocultural effects and conditions that condition and drive political policy, are far too tightly interwoven for that.

I disagree. "Fiscal conservative and social liberal" is what a "Libertarian" is.

Come on shades, you know you have to fit snugly into one of two cubbyholes Droopy has picked out for you. If not, then you're either lying or you don't exist.

It depends on how you define "fiscally conservative" and "fiscally liberal." I'm not sure what those terms mean in the US today.

But I do know what "fiscally responsible" is, and I can't think of a single conservative in office (or running) today who fits that description. Anyone who supports massive military spending, along with deep tax cuts, is not at all responsible. The responsible position is not to intentionally limit income to a level below expenditures, but to actually pay for the expenditures that the majority of your citizens want.

And believe me -- given a choice between an "on your own" society (with very low taxes and very few services) and one that provides for the elderly and poor and sick (with taxes high enough to pay for it), Americans will overwhelmingly reject the first option.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is to provide those services, and pay for them. Whether that is conservative or liberal, I don't know.

Droopy wrote:One cannot, with serious intellectual coherence, be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. The two regions of the human condition, politics, political economy, and the sociocultural effects and conditions that condition and drive political policy, are far too tightly interwoven for that.

One cannot find serious intellectual coherence in the above statement.

I'm not sure what those terms mean in the US today.

I find it ironic that the word "liberal" has a root meaning of free, as in free from government. And yet this is the political ideology that trades freedom for free stuff.

And believe me -- given a choice between an "on your own" society (with very low taxes and very few services) and one that provides for the elderly and poor and sick (with taxes high enough to pay for it), Americans will overwhelmingly reject the first option.

And if the numbers don't add up, we'll bring in more illegal immigrants until they do.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Droopy wrote:One cannot, with serious intellectual coherence, be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. The two regions of the human condition, politics, political economy, and the sociocultural effects and conditions that condition and drive political policy, are far too tightly interwoven for that.

I disagree. "Fiscal conservative and social liberal" is what a "Libertarian" is.

All libertarians are by no means social liberals, and indeed, I would say that this represents only a sub-set of the movement (which isn't very large to begin with). Contemporary conservatism is, in any case, a fusion (which is why it has been termed "fusionist" since its inception in the fifties) of conservative and libertarian ideas.

But assuming your assertion to be true, it still doesn't work philosophically, unless cognitive dissonance (or just intellectual disinterest in moral and cultural elements of the human condition, which does exist among "strong" libertarians) can overcome the philosophical contradictions concerned.

The problem is that social liberalism and fiscal liberalism are a dynamic, interrelated and mutually reinforcing system (as are all ideologies and their respective systemic effects once put into practice as real policy). Social liberalism requires fiscal liberalism - a steep, progressive, mutlilayered tax system, Keynesian manipulation of money and credit, "stimulus" spending throught high taxation and fiat money creation; encouragement of artificial economic prosperity through national and individual debt; deep business regulation and control, a vast government managed and funded social services network; a massive regulatory apparatus who's primary function is essentially further taxation through regulatory fees, permitting, licensure, and fines for regulatory compliance violations; and in fine, deep, pervasive, overarching control and manipulation of the economy and of human behavior.

This includes the funding of organs of leftist social transformation and culture war such as Planned Parenthood, ACORN, various environmental groups, and rent seekers within the leftist orbit such as green technology corporations and the ethanol industry.

The concept and structural elements of the welfare state require, induce, and generate the very fiscal policies necessary to its growth and maintenance. At the same time, the social pathologies and economic dislocations spawned by social liberalism then require further fiscal expenditure upon the welfare state itself to mediate the the very effects social liberalism itself has created - a self perpetuating, self reinforcing system in which fiscal liberalism funds social liberalism and the effects of social liberalism then generate the conditions under which fiscal liberalism must continue to expand in size and scope.

Social liberalism (through the welfare state and its justificational ideology) also creates a mentality of entitlement, pursue identity politics based in permanent grievance against other groups, and encourage a mentality of class resentment (among susceptible people) that always eventuates in the clamoring for ever more state intervention into personal life and behavior in order to makes things right between human beings, punish enemies and reward friends (of the class or group). This then feeds fiscal liberalism as it feeds the ever expanding growth and responsibilities of the welfare/caregiver/chaperone state - fiscal liberalism.