As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal: Can the Two Coexist?

SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
edited December 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
What does fiscally conservative yet socially liberal mean?

When I think of a fiscally conservative person, I think of someone who believes in free market principles in the form of less taxation, regulation, and is a proponent of capitalism. When I think of someone who is socially liberal, it is a person who believes in social equality in the form of, perhaps, gay rights, feminism, and other issues. However, aren't these two things intermixed and somewhat interdependent? Is a person making a disconnect between the two when they describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

Is it an oxymoron to describe yourself as such? How can one be socially liberal yet support a system (such as capitalism) that inherently devalues a working woman who needs to go on leave for two years to raise her kids? One might say that it is an issue of how money is treated vs. how people are treated, but I would point out that money is directly tied to people and their quality of life, so how can the two be disconnected?

Pure capitalism creates class structure, and in an exaggerated form, is a social system rooted in economic imbalance. The system we currently have is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, but people still strive for that ideal capitalistic system while claiming to be socially liberal.

My only guess is that individuals can make a claim to this title because they honestly believe that when it comes to this "rooted" imbalance, an individual can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and change their economic situation, while one is born black, gay, or a woman and therefore can't change it, thus establishing themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal due to this ideological methodology. However, I also believe that to some degree they can claim the title of "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" because while they state that those with a skin color different than their own should have equal rights, they don't really understand why and couldn't argue that point effectively.

I started this thread because I'm genuinely interested in what people think about this. Is it possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal? If you join in the discussion, please define what you mean by the two, and how they are either dependent or independent from each other.

SkyGheNe on
«13456711

Posts

  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think it is a fairy tale political position that well off middle class people tend to embrace because it reflects their lives. They don't need government help, their job prospects are bright and they share in more upperclass social values. Additionally, they may like drugs and their recreational use doesn't have the life destroying impact on them and their acquaintances as it does on lower class people with less of a social safety net.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    doesnt it mean libertarian?


    275px-Nolan-chart.svg.png

    Joolander on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    I think it is a fairy tale political position that well off middle class people tend to embrace because it reflects their lives. They don't need government help, their job prospects are bright and they share in more upperclass social values. Additionally, they may like drugs and their recreational use doesn't have the life destroying impact on them and their acquaintances as it does on lower class people with less of a social safety net.

    <3

    I don't know if I even agree with you, but I love you nonetheless.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Yes?

    Political ideologies typically have an economic component and a social component because the two things are separate ideas.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Yes?

    Political ideologies typically have an economic component and a social component because the two things are separate ideas.

    How? I argued how they are connected and I asked that those who participated here do the same for either stance if they want to argue it instead of being vague. Define your terms and explain how they aren't interdependent. Separate ideas does not necessarily mean independent, it simply means separate definitions, it does not mean that one doesn't affect the other.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Cognitive dissonance.

    Minorities aren't just poverty stricken because of their skin, it's also the lack of social mobility.

    Or, they just don't want the government involved in anything and are libertarians, self described or otherwise.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    From the early 90s to mid '00s, Canada was ruled by a Liberal government that was basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It was a really good time for our country.
    It's possible if you're able to get away from American political false dichotomies.

    It really depends on if "conservative" refers to what America considers conservative (crazy GOPers) or what the rest of the entire world considers conservative.

    TubularLuggage on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I reject the idea that "fiscally conservative" is directly associated with "miserly and fuckwadded".

    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    From the early 90s to mid '00s, Canada was ruled by a Liberal government that was basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It was a really good time for our country.
    It's possible if you're able to get away from American political false dichotomies.

    Once again, define your terms - what does that even mean?

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Yes?

    Political ideologies typically have an economic component and a social component because the two things are separate ideas.

    How? I argued how they are connected and I asked that those who participated here do the same for either stance if they want to argue it instead of being vague. Define your terms and explain how they aren't interdependent. Separate ideas does not necessarily mean independent, it simply means separate definitions, it does not mean that one doesn't affect the other.

    Of course they're not independent, but a political ideological classification is not going to be context-dependent to the point of specificity because of the very fact that they're generalizations for easy identification. If they weren't broad, they'd lose their use as a generalization.

    Along that vein, political ideologies are used in referring to broader societal issues or facets of values that similarly aren't specified down to detailed minutiae.

    Furthermore, that they're not independent of one another does not mean that they're interdependent to the point of asserting that economic and social ideological outlooks are indistinguishable.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    I reject the idea that "fiscally conservative" is directly associated with "miserly and fuckwadded".

    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Okay, so this is a good post. Do you feel that there is sometimes a discrepancy between how you define fiscally conservative and how it is pragmatically discussed or applied to in the realm of politics? I ask this because on wikipedia, they define fiscal conservatism as:
    a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other neoliberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

    I bolded the last part because I do see a conflation in American politics between fiscal conservatism and the bolded section, however I can see how the term may have been perverted over time in the same way that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was taken and perverted in the early 1940s by libertarians.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    From the early 90s to mid '00s, Canada was ruled by a Liberal government that was basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It was a really good time for our country.
    It's possible if you're able to get away from American political false dichotomies.

    Once again, define your terms - what does that even mean?

    They cut spending in some areas to be able to pay for certain things, while balancing the budget and giving us 10+ years of surpluses, while paying down the debt.

    TubularLuggage on
  • Options
    N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I have about three functioning brain cells right now, but here's my response:

    I think you can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal to an extent. You can allow capitalism as much freedom as possible while maintaining certain boundaries (eg. anti-trust acts, anti-speculation laws) while also providing some programs to prevent blatant abuse (eg. child-labor laws, fair compensation laws) and removing obstacles for those with liabilities that might be prevented from success by a purely capitalistic system (eg. EEOC). Being socially liberal is often more about how taxes are spent and equal opportunity is offered rather than about pure "socialization" of business (which would undermine capitalism). If that makes sense. Of course, there are some areas where social liberalism and socialization has moderately occurred (eg. public education), but we still see that is functions within an overarching capitalism (eg. private schools). Desiring social equality (typically in the form of opportunity+safety/leg up) is not against the principles of a generally capitalistic market. You can't have pure capitalism with the boundaries required by social liberalism, but the concepts are not against each other.
    inherently devalues a working woman who needs to go on leave for two years to raise her kids?
    Um. Really? It's not a devaluing for a business to be unable to let anyone go on leave for two years without replacing them. In fact, expecting a business to do that for a woman who wishes to rear her children when they could not do that for any other reason, is quite unjust and seems rather against the idea of liberalism anyway.

    N1tSt4lker on
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Aren't you just kind of filling in a definition you like here?

    I mean, let's say I prefer an approach to public policy that emphasizes experimentation and empirical evaluation of results.

    I can claim this is conservative, because it partakes of caution and prudence. I can also claim it is liberal, because it is eminently rational and innovative.

    It really just boils down to which ideology I favor, and thus want to hang pretty adjectives on. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past and I think it's one you might me making now. You've said nothing about ideas and something about your prejudices and biases.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    Lord PalingtonLord Palington he.him.his History-loving pal!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    I reject the idea that "fiscally conservative" is directly associated with "miserly and fuckwadded".

    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    I don't know if I would consider your last example fiscally 'conservative.' I've always thought of fiscally conservative meaning small government. I think a better phrase for your last example would be "fiscally responsible."

    Lord Palington on
    SrUxdlb.jpg
  • Options
    N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I ask this because on wikipedia, they define fiscal conservatism as:
    a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other neoliberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

    I bolded the last part because I do see a conflation in American politics between fiscal conservatism and the bolded section, however I can see how the term may have been perverted over time in the same way that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was taken and perverted in the early 1940s by libertarians.

    I would posit that the reason it has become synonymous with a reduction in government spending is because of the fact that our government is operating hugely in the red. I would agree that dealing with the deficit is a big issue. This would be accomplished in part by a reduction of government spending in areas where it is being wasted/out of control/shouldn't be there (like special interest spending that gets shuffled through in bills where no one notices it). Were the deficit not so huge, I think there would less connection between being fiscally conservative (basically in favour of capitalism in its best--not necessarily most wide-open-throttle--form) and conservative political ideas (tax policy and total deregulation).

    N1tSt4lker on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Aren't you just kind of filling in a definition you like here?

    I mean, let's say I prefer an approach to public policy that emphasizes experimentation and empirical evaluation of results.

    I can claim this is conservative, because it partakes of caution and prudence. I can also claim it is liberal, because it is eminently rational and innovative.

    It really just boils down to which ideology I favor, and thus want to hang pretty adjectives on. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past and I think it's one you might me making now. You've said nothing about ideas and something about your prejudices and biases.

    Conservatism relating to caution and incrementalism is speaking about values though.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Pork barrel spending is some ridiculously small percentage of our yearly budget as I recall.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    Pork barrel spending is some ridiculously small percentage of our yearly budget as I recall.

    If you're talking about "pet projects", then yeah, it is.

    If you're talking about waste, it's a much larger portion.

    But: define waste.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Whenever you generalize massive amounts of various beliefs into a single label, of course there will be contradictions. That doesn't mean that the fiscally conservative, socially liberal man is a hypocrite. You can easily want smaller government, less regulation, and less social programs, while still wanting equal marriage rights and right to abortions. You don't suddenly lose your "socially liberal" status as soon as you say you're not a fan of affirmative action.

    NotYou on
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Aren't you just kind of filling in a definition you like here?

    I mean, let's say I prefer an approach to public policy that emphasizes experimentation and empirical evaluation of results.

    I can claim this is conservative, because it partakes of caution and prudence. I can also claim it is liberal, because it is eminently rational and innovative.

    It really just boils down to which ideology I favor, and thus want to hang pretty adjectives on. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past and I think it's one you might me making now. You've said nothing about ideas and something about your prejudices and biases.

    Conservatism relating to caution and incrementalism is speaking about values though.

    He said he's against wasting money by throwing it at things.

    Find me a fiscal liberal who disagrees.

    Not much substance there.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Pork barrel spending is some ridiculously small percentage of our yearly budget as I recall.

    If you're talking about "pet projects", then yeah, it is.

    If you're talking about waste, it's a much larger portion.

    But: define waste.

    based on what i can guess from the news:

    Waste = things i dont like

    Joolander on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    He said he's against wasting money by throwing it at things.

    Find me a fiscal liberal who disagrees.

    Not much substance there.

    Anyone who claims schools need more funding.

    There's absolutely no evidence that would accomplish anything.

    Yet, we hear it every year.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Aren't you just kind of filling in a definition you like here?

    I mean, let's say I prefer an approach to public policy that emphasizes experimentation and empirical evaluation of results.

    I can claim this is conservative, because it partakes of caution and prudence. I can also claim it is liberal, because it is eminently rational and innovative.

    It really just boils down to which ideology I favor, and thus want to hang pretty adjectives on. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past and I think it's one you might me making now. You've said nothing about ideas and something about your prejudices and biases.

    Conservatism relating to caution and incrementalism is speaking about values though.

    He said he's against wasting money by throwing it at things.

    Find me a fiscal liberal who disagrees.

    Not much substance there.

    No he didn't. His point is that he is in favour of approaching problems through incremental measures or by taking a cautious approach to the policy prescriptions to problems, as opposed to the creation of new, untested programs in response to problems.

    I'm not going to argue that economic liberalists would throw money at things, because they wouldn't conceive it as 'throwing money away' but rather as addressing a problem through the preference of creating some new institution which differs from addressing problems through the preference of not defaulting to creating new things but utilizing existing institutional structures.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    He said he's against wasting money by throwing it at things.

    Find me a fiscal liberal who disagrees.

    Not much substance there.

    Anyone who claims schools need more funding.

    There's absolutely no evidence that would accomplish anything.

    Yet, we hear it every year.
    Obviously it depends on the school, but there is plenty of research out there that shows that reducing class size increases student performance.

    Kanamit on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    This thread has a lot of begging the question in it.


    Absolute capitalism isn't any more compatible with freedom than absolute communism, or even for that matter absolute democracy. I can see using the argument that government intervention in the marketplace can create corruption and can result in the government picking sides, generally the side of the majority or special interest groups because that's how democracy works.

    I can also see the argument that allowing the rich to become too powerful means that they will skew governance in their favor. Both arguments work, and I tend to move back and forth between liberal and social democrat.

    And then, regardless of polemics about capitalism, it does work very well when there is appropriate government intervention. You just need to define appropriate. The tone set by the OP casting liberal democrats as gold-hording nutjobs really makes it hard to come in with any argument not fueled by anger, though, so I guess I'd suggest toning that down.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fiscally Conservative just means using economic policy to the greatest benefit, rather than throwing money at problems in either the vain hope it may accomplish something, or for the goal of scoring political feel-good points. If a large government program is efficient and results in a net increase to society (without putting an undue burden on the backs of future taxpayers), I would consider that to be fiscally conservative.

    Aren't you just kind of filling in a definition you like here?

    I mean, let's say I prefer an approach to public policy that emphasizes experimentation and empirical evaluation of results.

    I can claim this is conservative, because it partakes of caution and prudence. I can also claim it is liberal, because it is eminently rational and innovative.

    It really just boils down to which ideology I favor, and thus want to hang pretty adjectives on. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past and I think it's one you might me making now. You've said nothing about ideas and something about your prejudices and biases.

    Conservatism relating to caution and incrementalism is speaking about values though.

    He said he's against wasting money by throwing it at things.

    Find me a fiscal liberal who disagrees.

    Not much substance there.

    No he didn't. His point is that he is in favour of approaching problems through incremental measures or by taking a cautious approach to the policy prescriptions to problems, as opposed to the creation of new, untested programs in response to problems.

    I'm not going to argue that economic liberalists would throw money at things, because they wouldn't conceive it as 'throwing money away' but rather as addressing a problem through the preference of creating some new institution which differs from addressing problems through the preference of not defaulting to creating new things but utilizing existing institutional structures.

    Bullshit. His definition of fiscally conservative boiled down to "anytime government spending works out". He defined the position as when policy is right, not as any sort of guide towards how we generate policy positions. Speaker's on the money - it's a bankrupt definition, and I'd argue, a bankrupt idea.

    "Fiscally conservative" is a catchphrase politicians use with the public, and it works largely coz the public generally has no idea how the monetary instruments of nations work.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Why do you believe that 'fiscally conservative' means free market/movement conservative? I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal in that I want all the bountiful joys of government services/socialism...but I also want my taxes increased to actually pay for them. In fact, not just pay for them, but to run a budget surplus in the boom years so as to have a rainy day fund in order to enhance counter-cyclical programs in the lean years. That or get pumped into 5 year infrastructure investment plans that were crafted over the previous 3 years, rather than overnight, in order to have a national network that makes sense and improves multi-modal transportation options for just about everything.

    Also, simplified tax code &c. that don't change much over time, nor require studied experts to even get an inkling of what the fuck it means, since consistency there would be very beneficial.

    moniker on
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    From the early 90s to mid '00s, Canada was ruled by a Liberal government that was basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It was a really good time for our country.
    It's possible if you're able to get away from American political false dichotomies.

    Once again, define your terms - what does that even mean?

    They cut spending in some areas to be able to pay for certain things, while balancing the budget and giving us 10+ years of surpluses, while paying down the debt.

    Bill Clinton did this during the 90s and is liberal. I do not understand how that behavior is necessarily unique to conservatives.

    I have about three functioning brain cells right now, but here's my response:
    I think you can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal to an extent. You can allow capitalism as much freedom as possible while maintaining certain boundaries (eg. anti-trust acts, anti-speculation laws) while also providing some programs to prevent blatant abuse (eg. child-labor laws, fair compensation laws) and removing obstacles for those with liabilities that might be prevented from success by a purely capitalistic system (eg. EEOC). Being socially liberal is often more about how taxes are spent and equal opportunity is offered rather than about pure "socialization" of business (which would undermine capitalism). If that makes sense. Of course, there are some areas where social liberalism and socialization has moderately occurred (eg. public education), but we still see that is functions within an overarching capitalism (eg. private schools). Desiring social equality (typically in the form of opportunity+safety/leg up) is not against the principles of a generally capitalistic market. You can't have pure capitalism with the boundaries required by social liberalism, but the concepts are not against each other.

    quote:
    inherently devalues a working woman who needs to go on leave for two years to raise her kids?

    Um. Really? It's not a devaluing for a business to be unable to let anyone go on leave for two years without replacing them. In fact, expecting a business to do that for a woman who wishes to rear her children when they could not do that for any other reason, is quite unjust and seems rather against the idea of liberalism anyway.

    I see what you're saying and somewhat agree with you in your first paragraph, but if we were to look at a wikipedia definition of capitalism:
    Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.

    It is not only described as an economic system, but also a social system in which what you produce and any subsequent revenue is something that you are entitled to and is essentially dog-eat-dog, which ties into what I meant about women workers.

    I was a little unclear by what I said. Under a capitalist system, women should be paid less because under such a system, they would theoretically be more at risk for getting pregnant than a man, since a man cannot and will not in the future get pregnant. So why would a company offer equal wages for a woman when they can reasonably predict that in the future they may get pregnant and consequently require them to train a new employee? Under capitalism, which we would assume would also fall under fiscal conservatism, one cannot reconcile the two because they are in direct conflict with each other while socially, one would find it absurd to discriminate based on the sex of an individual, but capitalism calls to do just that.
    Aegis wrote:
    Of course they're not independent, but a political ideological classification is not going to be context-dependent to the point of specificity because of the very fact that they're generalizations for easy identification. If they weren't broad, they'd lose their use as a generalization.

    Along that vein, political ideologies are used in referring to broader societal issues or facets of values that similarly aren't specified down to detailed minutiae.

    Furthermore, that they're not independent of one another does not mean that they're interdependent to the point of asserting that economic and social ideological outlooks are indistinguishable.

    But I'm still having trouble understanding how they aren't in direct conflict with each other on the basis of their fundamental generalizations.

    I think you need to define what you mean by the two because as I have explained above, fiscal conservatism to some degree is tied to capitalism, free market principles, and deregulation, all of which have direct consequences when the system operates on a classism/sexism/etc and does not advocate for complete social equality (if you don't buy into this last part, I can try to argue it but would like to save myself the time if you agree).

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Kanamit on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"

    "Deficits don't matter" and whatever bullshit Reagan used to justify his largess before Bush the Greater and Congress put pay as you go into the rules. Which Bush the Lesser and the '02 GOP killed and sodomized with Medicare Part D.

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Tax-and-spend would be a conservative move since you are taxing the money into the Treasury before you spend it...

    moniker on
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Why do you believe that 'fiscally conservative' means free market/movement conservative? I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal in that I want all the bountiful joys of government services/socialism...but I also want my taxes increased to actually pay for them. In fact, not just pay for them, but to run a budget surplus in the boom years so as to have a rainy day fund in order to enhance counter-cyclical programs in the lean years. That or get pumped into 5 year infrastructure investment plans that were crafted over the previous 3 years, rather than overnight, in order to have a national network that makes sense and improves multi-modal transportation options for just about everything.

    Also, simplified tax code &c. that don't change much over time, nor require studied experts to even get an inkling of what the fuck it means, since consistency there would be very beneficial.

    As I quoted previously, fiscal conservatism is described as:
    a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other neoliberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

    Whether a government or social service is beneficial is irrelevant according to this definition. It calls for a reduction of overall government spending, which means less revenue, which means less social programs to bring about the equality that social liberalism calls for.

    While I think your definition is pretty awesome, and what many members on this board would describe themselves as, I find it a tad mistaken for the same reason Speaker discussed: if this is fiscal conservatism, then what is fiscal liberalism? Is fiscal liberalism inherently a policy that involves spending willy nilly? I don't think I'd buy that and is driven by the notion that liberals spend frivolously and have no interest in the efficacy of a program.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Tax-and-spend would be a conservative move since you are taxing the money into the Treasury before you spend it...
    Yeah, if you buy into the whole "conservative means responsible" thing, which I don't.

    Kanamit on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Tax-and-spend would be a conservative move since you are taxing the money into the Treasury before you spend it...
    Yeah, if you buy into the whole "conservative means responsible" thing, which I don't.

    Economically, I think it does.

    Socially, I think it doesn't.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Tax-and-spend would be a conservative move since you are taxing the money into the Treasury before you spend it...

    But that isn't what the popular definition is, so when people label themselves as such, it confuses me. It's like when people claim to not be feminists, but then believe in equal rights for women because they think of feminists as people who want more rights for women than men.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I think a better question to ask might be "what do people believe fiscally liberal means?"
    Tax-and-spend, bleeding heart, welfare queen, unserious, etc.

    Edit: In America, anyways.

    Tax-and-spend would be a conservative move since you are taxing the money into the Treasury before you spend it...

    But that isn't what the popular definition is, so when people label themselves as such, it confuses me. It's like when people claim to not be feminists, but then believe in equal rights for women because they think of feminists as people who want more rights for women than men.

    Is your problem that people label themselves as things and then don't live up to the commonly understood meaning of those labels?

    Because that's American politics in its entirety.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    There is no complete discussion of US fiscal policy without this graph:

    datpostert600.jpg

    The outer ring of bubbles is spending, to be compared by size. The inner bubble is revenue, a pie chart by source.

    So... school funding? "Other". FBI? "Other". Fire services? "Other". CDC? FDA? "Other".

    There are exactly two significant sources of spending - the military and social insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). Anything else is loose change. Fiscal conservatism in this context means hammering on these two; anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to mislead you, either to support vague "anti-waste" measures that do exactly jack to the deficit, or to hare after some disliked social program.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Yeah, my idea of a fiscal conservative is that they have low taxes and a small government, while a fiscal liberal will have higher taxes and a larger government. There's a lot of judging at play here, which I'd put onto the dichotomies of the American system.

    Ethan Smith on
Sign In or Register to comment.