Why do fiscal and social conservatism usually go hand in hand?

Wouldn't it make more logical sense for the same party to promote both an individual's economic and social personal freedoms? When did this unholy marriage between fiscal conservatism and state led religious doctrines begin?

How does the same party that cries for small government also demand government encroachment in social issues, and for that matter, security issues. You can't call for reduced government interference in our lives economically and then increased government intrusion when it comes to our social choices. It's almost an oxymoron.

If your religious beliefs are compelling you to fight for a more "moral" society, all the power to you, but recognize that you will need a strong government that infringes on personal liberty in order to do so.

 

Get specific.

Your title is kinda contrary to your post, but be that as it may, what "government encroachments in social issues" are you talking about, specifically?

How does a civil society require bigger government and personal liberty infringements?

Exactly what are you talking about?

 

That does not seem to be the case with Libertarians. I would take the Tea Party seriously, if it wasn't for the whackjobs like Bachmann etc... they choose to represent them.

 

All excellent points. I think when they say "limited government" they mean "with regard to commerce and finance only." And when they say "freedom" they really mean "freedom to practice Christianity."

The Republican Party of today bears little resemblance to the party of Barry Goldwater. I think it really started with Reagan -- regardless of his faith, he courted the evangelicals with greater success than anyone in recent history. The mold was cast.

 

Why do fiscal and social conservatism usually go hand in hand?

....because thats the way the Liberal Media portrays it.
.
.
.

 

Are we talking Libertarians or libertarians? Certainly some people who identify themselves on this board as "libertarians" endorse almost part-and-parcel the social austerity of the social conservatives a-la Bachmann, et al. There was a time (the Goldwater era) when the Republicans truly were libertarians. That's with a lower-case "l" mind you.

 

Great points. Conservatives are generally very 'selective' about social freedoms.

 

I hope you're kidding.

 

As are liberals, to be accurate.

 

Um I dunno. Liberal Librarians? The folks who want to get rid of every federal agency! Those guys! Oh, and who say I can mount a .50 Cal. on my front terrace if I want to. The ones like Ron Paul but who are usually not quite that controversial.

 

I think you will see that the social freedoms that liberals want to take away have to do with things that infringe on other peoples rights. The idea that your freedom stops when it infringes on my freedom is a basic understanding of the liberal creed.

Here is an example. banning smoking in restraunts is a liberal idea because it the act of smoking a ciggerette infringes on the rights of others to enjoy a restraunt more than it infringes on the right of the smoker both in how much displeasure is caused to non smokers and the number of people affected by the action. Because the magnitude is greater for non smokers than for smokers liberals support laws that prevent smoking in restraunts.

 

Well, for starters, to infringe on any civil liberties requires government regulation, which then of course requires government enforcement of those regulations.

I mean, I can't really think of any examples. Well, other than gay marriage, polygamy, abortion, American exceptionalism which I feel could well be rooted in the moral superiority complex of Christianity (this of course plays a large part in the multi-trillion dollar war machine), oh and, I believe there is a multi-billion dollar drug war going on (which of course also leads to very costly immigration issues).

I'm really not big on facts though. So no... I'm not sure I can really offer any specifics.

 

I disagree. The social freedoms that the liberals want to take away are the ones that contradict their vision for society.

But the restaurant is private property. Why not let the market dictate if it allows smoking or not? Hence, the social freedoms that the liberals want to take away are the ones that they find contrary to their vision for society. In this regard, they are exactly like the conservatives. Ahem.

 

Gonna have to go ahead and agree with this post. Nothing liberal about infringing on someone's right to do whatever harm they choose to their body.

You know I've never quite understood this one. In a free society why should it be anyone's business if someone chooses to harm themselves. Let them. Of course, once you have a welfare state then it becomes the tax payer's business.

 

How is that so (specifically)? And maybe I should have 'qualified' my claim, by saying that I've personally viewed the policies of 'Conservatives', as catering far-more to religious traditions... thus promoting/allowing fewer freedoms overall.

 

You have facts, but you haven't woven them together into a coherent position. Your argument is amorphous and lacks direction.

 

Okay. I'll address gay marriage. And keep in mind that I'm speaking for myself - not all conservatives. You can try, as most liberals do, but you can't put us all in the same box. A lot of conservatives here will not agree with me on this.

I have no problem with gay UNIONS or partnerships.

I am however opposed to the government's involvement in marriage, period. Heterosexual or otherwise.

Marriage is a spiritual and religious activity and the government has no business being involved in it. But if the government is going to be involved, then I favor a state's right to decide on it and not the federal government.

Civil unions (as opposed to marriage) should be part of the government's business, however.

I'd be glad to talk about American exceptionalism when I'm not so tired. This has been a long day for me. Good night.

 

Would anyone agree, that many more 'Conservatives' (in America) are religious fundamentalists, than 'Liberals'?

 

I partially agree; however... that is not exclusively what "marriage" is. It is not merely/exclusively spiritual or religious.

I do not agree with this. There is a point where the 'majority' in any given state, may indeed seek or agree to minimize the rights of a 'minority'... that is exactly where the Federal Government must step in and ensure that the Constitution is honored/regarded.

 

Hmmm... you used a rarely uttered word, so I'm sure you're fairly clever.

Honestly, can you tell me what makes a general statement that calling for social government regulations is inherently in opposition to the concept of personal freedoms incoherent?

(remember, we're working with facts and actual arguments if possible here)

 

A journey of 10,000 Li begins with a single step.

For purposes of our inquiry it will be necessary to clarify your prose to make it sharp like a dagger. Why is that necessary? Unless we duel with very sharp daggers we won't cut to the heart of the inquiry...instead we will roam around like Greco-Roman wrestlers locked in embrace.

Your post asks a question, but in its present form it is susceptible to different interpretations. Thus, I request that you rephrase the question so that I don't have to guess as to its meaning. Gracias.

 

That is a valid point when it comes to customers but 2 other problems. People shouldn't have to choose between working in a smokey restraunt or not working at all. Also restraunts that share building space with other restraunts or businesses, those people than have to deal with smoke and they have no economic way to force the market to change the behavior of the restaraunt that allows smoking.

 

lol... It's a discussion, not a writing contest Zoro, but I'll oblige...

You've stated that my argument is incoherent. Alright. My argument wasn't complex. Let's take one example (I'm going to speak in short, sharp sentences so you aren't riddled with confusion). I believe anti-drug regulations are partially motivated by a moral agenda (am I correct or incorrect?) The policing required to maintain a "war on drugs" is costly and requires increased government spending and regulation. The anti-drug laws prevent me from doing what I want with my body.

My question to you was: Is it unreasonable and incoherent (as you've stated) to suggest that there is at least mild hypocrisy to be found in supporting individual freedoms at every turn until it conflicts with one's moral agenda. Yes or no?

 

Because the free market is not very intelligent and has extremely limited judgment. My own estimation is that the free market has only slightly more wisdom than your average teenager.

And if what you're saying is true, and the liberals and conservatives both want to establish rules for society, then they still aren't necessarily exactly like the conservatives. You would just have to judge them by different criteria, like maybe the goal of the rules.

 

Wouldn't that depend somewhat on the agenda?

I'll be honest: there are more important things to me than freedom. I can think of precisely three off the top of my head.

Everyone's got something they're willing to trade freedom for. The question is, what things?