Comments by "Rob McCune" (@robm6645) on "Does "Socially Liberal u0026 Fiscally Conservative" Make Sense? Question" video.

  1. Exactly, it's not socially liberal, it's socially apathetic, often to the point of hostility.
    3
  2. ***** It doesn't mean socialist, it means a left of center position.
    2
  3. It's definitely childish, I used to hold that position in high school as well.
    2
  4. +jonmcd13 I know. That is corporatist keynesiansim. That doesn't make actual fiscal conservatism a good position though.
    2
  5. Short answer is no, not really, socially liberal and economically liberal both are concerned for individual well being in ways that conservativism is not. The closest thing in modern politics to socially liberal and economically conservative is Hillary Clinton and the corporatist democrats, and none of them actually use the phrasing "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative." That phrasing is used by libertarians who call themselves "socially liberal" because they don't give a shit about transgender bathrooms while Ted Cruz does.
    2
  6. +KingLink95 Libertarian "social liberalism" is nothing but the libertarian maxim of "I've got mine, fuck you." It's complete apathy on everything from heroin addicts to segregation. Saying that segregated lunch counters are cool is not a socially liberal position. While a liberal would certainly want heroin decriminalized and legalized (in regards that it can prescribed to addicts like in Switzerland), they would not consider it a good thing for heroin needles to be sold on shelves at Walmart and certainly wouldn't celebrate using dirty needles as part of the sharing economy.
    2
  7. Not really, libertarianism is not socially liberal. Also the word you're looking for is Republican, socially conservative and Keynesian economics.
    1
  8. Muh Spooks And yet libertarians can't find it in themselves to oppose segregation or support the civil rights act of 1964, in the year 2016. Also their position on drugs do nothing about ensuring people don't overdose or contract diseases through intravenous use. They also don't want to do anything to really advance any of these causes, which means they are not socially liberal. Supply side economics is bad Keynesian economics, deficit spending through tax cuts and subsidies for economic stimulus.
    1
  9. Muh Spooks Social liberalism isn't only negative liberty that's the point. You can't have a lot of freedom without positive liberty which sometimes needs be guaranteed by society even if a lot of the time it's implicit. Libertarians hate all attempts to secure positive liberty by both the government and civil society. Supply side is stimulus through deficits, it claims to be opposed to Keynesianism while "working" only because of Keynesianism. Reagans first attempt at stimulus actually tanked the economy before he switched to supply side economics which stimulated growth with the deficit created by his cutting of the top marginal tax rates.
    1
  10. Muh Spooks That's kind of the point, social liberalism includes both, libertarianism on the other hand is only negative liberty of the individual, so it is something other than social liberalism, and cannot be "the ultimate" social liberalism. Supply side claims to spur investment and production through, among other things, cutting the top marginal tax rates without balancing the budget. Though it claims resulting growth will eventually pay for itself, that isn't the case and it ends up increasing the deficit.
    1
  11. Warren Graham What do you mean? I thought "apathetic, often to the point of hostility" meant tolerance.
    1
  12. Just because he gave a bad answer doesn't mean he isn't right. Whenever some says "fiscally conservative" they don't mean just fiscal policy, they mean they have an entire world view based on laissez faire economics. And a world view based on laissez faire economics is incompatible with being socially liberal. Don't believe me? Just look to segregation and the civil rights act of 1964, the "fiscally conservative" "socially liberal" crowd are far more socially conservative on that than regular social conservatives.
    1
  13. ***** In that case the closest thing to fiscally conservative socially liberal is Hillary Clinton.
    1
  14. ***** Hillary Clinton.
    1
  15. Exactly, people calling themselves "classical liberal" are just putting a nice label on something ugly. Real classical liberalism came in it's own in the 19th century and then promptly died at the beginning of the 20th. Libertarians also aren't socially liberal, as they don't actually want to advance a more equal society.
    1
  16. sterd1149 Yes, classical liberalism believed that negative liberty both personally and economically was the best way to advance a free and enlightened society, and it's concept of society was different than our understanding of it today, believing that there were a set of personal and civic virtues a person need be a citizen of that society. When laissez faire capitalism came was shown to be a failure so was the whole idea that negative liberty alone was sufficient for a free and enlightened society. The whole concept of "free and enlightened society" came into question because of WWI, WWII, and the nuclear arms race. We also have notions of society that are both far narrower with regard to the individual and far broader. I'm fairly sure if asked you to list 5 things that define you citizen would not be among them, yet to your grandparents that would have been an essential part of their identity. Capitalism creates it's own critique, so does classical liberalism you can't pursue freedom, equality, and progress without running into contradictions that demand going against classical liberalism. The very fact we call it "classical liberalism" means that we have moved beyond it.
    1
  17. jonmcd13 I know that too, just because corporatist keynesianism is bad does not discredit keynesianism in general. There are both economic and social benefits to keynesian fiscal policy directed at the poor and middle class. Fiscal conservatism is also a misnomer people often include laissez faire economics which strictly speaking has nothing to do with fiscal issues.
    1
  18. jonmcd13 Only if the system is structured that way. A great example is Wall Street regulation vs Glass-Stegall, Wall Street regulation today involves more and more complicated regulation and quite a bit of time effort and brain power to work through all the issues in a bill thousands of pages long. Giant corporations have the time money and man power to do this so they can find the loop holes and tie up any attempt to enforce the rule is court. Even then it depends on the people in the executive branch being able to enforce these laws, which they may not want to do because they are filled with Wall Street insiders, this is called regulatory capture. Glass-Stegall on the other hand is far more clear cut and much less dependent on regulators, it clearly separates money used for wall street speculation from the functions of normal banking. It would effectively break up the banks. This not only would make banking less profitable for big business, and keep money from savings, and loans out of Wall Street limiting it's size as well.
    1
  19. Sure they do, just ask one of those people about the civil rights act of 1964.
    1
  20. ***** If you ask a so called fiscally conservative so called socially liberal person about that land mark piece of socially liberal legislation, they oppose it. They are not socially liberal.
    1
  21. Actually it's not classical liberalism, classical liberalism is incompatible with social liberalism. Classical liberalism hasn't been a relevant political philosophy for 100 years and most people who use the label are not classical liberals.
    1
  22. Herr Denker Then why is West Virginia a third world country because of them?
    1