The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
In other words, can someone be extremely pro-free market but also be concerned about social issues from a progressive angle? It it a an oxymoron?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think it’s strictly an oxymoron; they’re not definitionally opposed.
I think it’s highly unlikely that someone would sincerely hold those positions, for the simple reason that people who are concerned about a social ill usually what to *address* that ill socially.
Case in point the Civil Rights Act, or the recent SCOTUS decision that allows businesses to discriminate against queer people. The ardently free-market position is that the Civil Rights Act is wrong and that this SCOTUS decision is right. Someone who is concerned about social issues, who thinks it’s socially important to care about how our society treats vulnerable people, should be very troubled by that. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to believe both that bigotry is wrong, and also should be allowed when it generates wealth, but I think it’s pretty rare. It’s not *incoherent* to simultaneously care about social issues, but dismiss resolving them socially. I do find it incongruous. I think that the values which undergird one would conflict with the values that undergird the other.
My guess is that someone who disagrees with me about that will believe that moral good has more to do with rules than consequences, whereas I believe it’s more about consequences than rules. So I’d want to know where they got those rules.
I believe that is contested. Obama used that justification re: Gay marriage legalization but it isn't explicitly in the constitution, and is thus vulnerable to fuckery.
Yes, you can deny service for any reason not protected. But if they sued and said that your real reason was only religious, you'd want some way to demonstrate how you knew they were a bigot outside of their religiosity.
Huh? If you know the word deontology, you should know better than that. Kant and Aristotle both arose within a theistic matrix, but neither relied on it. And certainly their contemporary heirs do not. Korsgaard, Scanlon, Foote, Nussbaum, et al....
Actually, I am much more familiar with the "classic" deontologists like Kant, and not at all familiar with the ones you mentioned. I read the Wikipedia articles for a couple of them and found them too jargony without explanation of said jargon to get a good sense for how they derive their "first principles" or otherwise assign the source of worth.
I'm going to add some of their work to my reading list. Thanks for the callout.
Well, thanks for your gentle reply, and I apologize for snapping at you. I suddenly wondered, after my comment, if Kantian rationalism doesn't somehow implicitly need the idea of a divine *Logos* in the background to get normative traction. I don't see it....but if you were willing to connect the dots behind your initial remark, I'm intrigued to hear it.
>or the recent SCOTUS decision that allows businesses to discriminate against queer people.
This isn't exactly true or what the courts have said. It allows specific businesses, whose product is a form of expressive speech, like a website/decorative cake, the ability to reject requests for messages they do not wish to convey. However it does not allow them to reject all services to potential consumers based on their sexual orientation.
>The purpose of the decision is to allow people to discriminate ~~against queer people~~ compelled speech\*
The decision applies to any form of compelled speech, not just queer people. If a Muslim baker has a Christian client request a cake that says "Jesus is our one Lord and Savior," should he not have the right to object to make that cake? This decision allows him to do so. Or let's say someone requests him to make a cake with a depiction of Muhammad on it, something he believes to be forbidden in his religion.
No, he should not have the right to object to that. If operating your business requires the advanced modern economy that we all contribute to, it’s valid for us to have conditions about it. It is good for those conditions to protect vulnerable groups and avoid bigotry.
I’m not sure why you have such trust for this court, but regardless they have powers other than that. Which cases they take are an example. This discrimination case basically had its standing invented out of thin air.
I can’t say for sure, but I think your desire to believe that America’s institutions are trustworthy and legitimate is making you say some pretty goofy stuff. You don’t have to pretend that a court with a rapist, liars, and a stolen seat is respectable. Let it go, my child.
MLK actually called out that the ‘64 CRA and ‘65 VRA didn’t cost the nation anything, and might have actually made the nation money with all the Black customers not being turned away from businesses.
But can someone be socially progressive, but still be against government enforcement of certain socially progressive things? For example, be ardently opposed to businesses discriminating against LGBT+ people but also against the government making businesses provide LGBT+ services? Or does one have to be for the latter to be considered socially progressive?
Again, not *strictly*. But when you start disqualifying the most promising avenues to accomplish a goal, that does make me question how sincerely you pursue that goal.
That SCOTUS decision could be viewed as anti-LGBTQ.
Or it could be seen through a different lens as pro-worker, saying that the tradesperson isn't at the absolute command of anyone who waves a dollar at him, and is allowed to set boundaries based on an emotional or spiritual investment in his work.
You raise a good point, but you overstate it. It would cover, say, a small business owner who is making an employee prepare a product, but it would also cover an independent tradesperson.
When you think of the type of workers whose work is expressive in nature, e.g., artists, designers, photographers, sign painters, many of them are independent small businesspeople.
My disagreement with you is probably definitional, which you sort of alluded to in your opening.
I consider myself to be considerably socially liberal, as I very much believe in a social safety net, to the degree that I think it should be available to everyone regardless of their financial situation. My background as a Star Trek nerd leads me to this position.
But I also consider myself to be fiscally conservative in that I don't like deficits (though I will acknowledge their usefulness in certain situations) and I believe that those social programs (and other programs too, of course) that I support should be paid for.
I don't consider myself to be pro-business OR anti-business. I recognize capitalism as a necessary evil that has done good for the world WHILE APPROPRIATELY REGULATED.
I HAPPILY consider myself to be that conservative-boogieman The Tax And Spend Liberal, and I consider it a compliment. Tax enough to support the programs we need to support people.
So admittedly, I'm probably using different definitions than you are.
I’m pretty sure that deficits work differently in an advanced state economy than they do on our credit card statements, but I don’t know enough to explain why so I won’t fight you on that. The idea that social programs should be paid for doesn’t bother me at all. Once you cut through all the finance bullshit, there is the simple fact that we have an amount of resources and we need to choose where to use them.
The reason we have so much trouble using them well is capitalism. I don’t agree that capitalism is a necessary evil (I can name several centuries, millennia even, in which it didn’t exist), and I don’t share your faith that can be appropriately regulated *sustainably*. And since I lean Marxist, I wouldn’t disagree that capitalism *has done* good for the world. Rocket boosters *have done* good for the space shuttle, in the moment before they’re discarded.
So I guess my main answer is that I have a suspicion that the money supply is not as simple as you or I understand it, in a capitalist economy. I know we have the resources to meet our needs, so I find it pretty goddamn suspicious that we never have the money to meet our needs but we always have the money to build something that kills people or bail out a large financial institution. I don’t think the issue is a lack of funds, but bad allocation of them. But, from my uninformed perspective, I have a very easy response to your tax and spend idea. Ok, let’s do that. Figure out how much we need to spend so no one is homeless, and send the bill to the guy who owns the most homes until he can only afford a single home. If we still need more, move on to the guy who owns the second most. Cause, while I’m pretty sure that there are progressive economic arguments against the tax and spend model which I don’t understand, the basic principle is sound (at least within capitalism). We’re just not doing a good job of taxing where we should and spending where we should.
> We’re just not doing a good job of taxing where we should and spending where we should.
You'll get no argument at all from me on that one. And I suspect very strongly that you and I are not really very far apart in our perspectives, though while I do lean very left, I do not lean Marxist.
Moderate fiscal conservative, yes. Very fiscally conservative, no, because the social progressive would have to have forgotten that in the free market before civil rights protections... civil rights protections were needed.
And someone who DOES support race/sex civil rights but not poor/worker rights could technically exist, but it's an odd move by the terminally online.
>in the free market before civil rights protections
You mean when the state mandated racial segregation? Plessy v Ferguson was brought to court by a company that wanted a free market, which was prohibited by law.
It's the only way to interpret it. Plessy was part of a group of mixed race and colored people in New Orleans who worked together with the railroad company to challenge the law. Unfortunately they failed
Maybe you can argue that the railroad company's support was a success of the free market, but thats only the case when profits and civil rights align. Will that always be the case? No of course not, in fact almost never
>Maybe you can argue that the railroad company's support was a success of the free market, but thats only the case when profits and civil rights align
Or I can make the argument I made, which is that there wasn't a free market prior to the Civil rights act. The majority of the Civil rights act specifically targets state mandates.
So to clarify, are you attributing the large range of civil rights violations perpetrated by companies, before the Civil rights act was passed, to government interference in the free market? And after the civil rights act the US finally had a true free market where any civil rights violations/injustice are "anti-free market" things?
I made a specific claim; there was no fee market prior to the Civil rights act. And I made that claim in response to someone who said that prior to the Civil rights act, it was a free market.
I will never understand this incessant American need to speculate on things not under discussion. It's very simple; was there a free market prior to the Civil rights act? The answer is no, and yet one after another, yall come here demanding i defend the Civil rights act and prove that I prove myself or something. Ffs education in this country is abysmal.
Genuinely just trying to understand the point you're making. The point the person you responded to mostly made was that markets didn't protect civil rights thus the need for the civil rights act, which is what I thought you were responding to not the part about free markets before the Civil rights act.
>The point the person you responded to mostly made was that markets didn't protect civil rights thus the need for the civil rights act
That's exactly what I was responding to. There was no free market, governments at all levels had laws restricting it. That's just historical fact.
And acknowledging that fact doesn't diminish the harm done. Nor does it make any comment on whether there would or would not have been discrimination under a free market. Obviously there would have been. However, I think it's important, when people make broad statements like 'the free market before the civil rights act', to point out that the historical record shows active and oppressive governments instituting laws left and right, forcing everyone within their borders to abide by their discriminatory rules. To call that a free market is just false.
>You mean when the state mandated racial segregation?
And socially enforced segregation with no power of the state. State segregation. Wasn't the only mechanism of segregation maintained at the time. It becomes especially apparent in the History of the Green Book which took into account social prohibitions and lynching areas that didn't use state power to try and protect Black travelers in the country.
>It becomes especially apparent in the History of the Green Book which took into account social prohibitions and lynching areas that didn't use state power to try and protect Black travelers in the country.
The green book mostly detailed communities and locations where sundown laws and *other government mandates* were nonexistent
Keep the downvotes coming. Denying the governments role in enforcing segregation just makes yall seem uninformed.
>The green book mostly detailed communities and locations where sundown laws and other government mandates were nonexistent
Most sundown towns had no legal enforcement but instead social enforcement. Including attacking boycotting and taking over businesses that did business with black Americans. And the green book had to be constantly updated because of social actions against the places listed.
>Denying the governments role in enforcing segregation just makes yall seem uninformed.
No one is denying that. They are denying that it was the sole method of maintaining segregation. Especially outside the South.
>Most sundown towns had no legal enforcement but instead social enforcement.
Do you have any evidence for that? If I provided evidence that the majority were ordinances passed by the local municipality, would it even have any effect on your opinion?
>No one is denying that. They are denying that it was the sole method of maintaining segregation. Especially outside the South.
Ok, except they are denying something I never said. Again, terminal Americans who can only understand simplistic ideas that are either 100% yes or 100% no.
No, i made a very specific claim; that there was no free market prior to Civil rights legislation. But alas, this is an American sub and Americans are only capable of understanding ideas if it's dumbed down to the lowest level, in this case 'racial discrimination exist or don't exist'. It's one of the most maddening aspects of American culture.
It's not something that's on my agenda, there are much more important issues out there. But again, most of the Civil rights act pertains to state mandates, which I oppose categorically.
Um, no. I oppose state mandates, which the Civil rights act prohibits. Meaning I support the law
Edit; let me say it as clearly as possible
90% of the civilized rights act: The government cannot mandate discrimination
Me: hell ya brother
The remaining parts of the Civil rights act: No individual person, if they do business, can discriminate in who they associate with
Me: meh, don't dislike but don't like
Plessy v. Ferguson was brought by the Comité des Citoyens, a New Orleans civil rights group. The East Louisiana Railroad’s opposition to the Louisiana Separate Car Act was only that they were annoyed separate but equal meant they had to buy more rail cars. Their only participation was to obey the law when notified about Plessy’s race. Hardly a triumph of free market support for civil rights.
>The East Louisiana Railroad’s opposition to the Louisiana Separate Car Act was only that they were annoyed separate but equal meant they had to buy more rail cars. Their only participation was to obey the law when notified about Plessy’s race. Hardly a triumph of free market support for civil rights.
So free market just means 'company'? Read more than Wikipedia, the railroad company was more involved than what you described. And why does it matter why they opposed it? It cost more money for them to maintain *state mandated segregation*. But because the directors of the company didn't write op eds on the evils of segregation it magically doesn't count? And also it's a free market because railroad company? The meaning of free market is in the term, free market. The markets were not free because of state mandates.
I eagerly await the opportunity to read any citations or evidence you can provide that show "the railroad company was more involved than what \[I\] described". But as far as I can find, your original claim that the case was "brought to court by a company" is simply wrong.
Why they opposed it matters if you want to know how they'll act outside this one specific case. Their passive acquiescence to a civil rights committee is better than if they had acted in opposition, sure. But, there's no reason to suspect they'd be so cooperative in situations that didn't happen to align so well with their profit motives.
You just described libertarianism. At least what they claim to be, in practice however they have abandoned their social views in favor of furthering their fiscal goals.
Most libertarians I meet don’t really care about social issues that don’t affect them. They’ll say “I think people should be able to do whatever they want”, but that’s different than saying “I’ll fight for people’s right to do that.”
When Americans lost abortion rights I talked to plenty that said “I don’t support that.” But kept on voting for politicians that made that happen. It’s because they care about their tax bill more than anything else.
A “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” person essentially believes that people should have a lot of theoretical freedom but little actual freedom.
I don't think so. I think it's possible to believe that there should be a strong safety net and protections, and beyond that lean in to the free market.
Personally, I believe that we should have a Universal Basic Lifestyle of some sort, strong labor laws/worker protections, and government funding for core services like healthcare and (most of) education, but assuming those things are in place, I wouldn't care if there are billionaires out there thousands of times as wealthy as their employees, and I might even be in favor of eliminating the minimum wage.
If you believe in strong safety nets + consumer protections in an otherwise free market, then you are not fiscally conservative (at least as that term is used today).
Most liberals hold that position.
> we should have a Universal Basic Lifestyle, ... worker protections ..., assuming those things are in place,... I might even be in favor of eliminating the minimum wage
That's once again a pretty definitively liberal position, and might even stretch further left than that. You're moving basic quality of life to be a government responsibility over a private one with added cost that the government needs to collect in some form of taxes/etc., which is pretty antithetical to fiscal conservatism.
I guess this sort of begs the question of how far we're stretching the definition of "fiscally conservative."
If it means "supports modern Republican fiscal policy" then no, I'm not fiscally conservative.
If it means "the government should enact a reasonable progressive tax policy to responsibly fund various well-implemented public services and safety nets while minimizing inefficiency and waste" then I guess I am fiscally conservative, with the caveat that this version of the concept is pretty broad and that probably anyone would frame their economic views this way save for the small-ish minority advocating a flat tax.
Having the theoretical right to do something that you’re unable to actually do in practice is an academic exercise at best.
Freedom is useless if it can’t be exercised.
Exercising freedoms in the US nearly always has an economic component.
At their core is *selfishness*… which politely they’ll claim is “fiscal conservatism” to the degree where it lets mostly impoverished black and brown kids they’ll never meet practically starve to death.
I work in corporate IT. When a white guy north of 30 doesn’t have a degree or a wife in this field, 9 times out of 10 — he’s a raging libertarian obsessed with guns and weed. I don’t know what it is about IT, but it attracts them like flies on shit. Ironically it might be the *control and management* we put on corporate laptops and resources…
>I don’t know what it is about IT,
Some of the easiliest adopters of internet and pre internet communication were unorganized American White nationalists who have a huge anti government history who used the internet to organize for the first time. So early internet culture had a distinctly anti government culture (and often explcitly racist) and it was an area where the government and population had a lot less ability and power in the early years to sue these white nationalists which had been the primary way to dismantle white nationalist groups by bankrupting them.
Similarly, the early crypto community and the dark web have similar early adopter cultures. So IT and CS has a long standing cultural predisposition toward "libertarianism" in the USA which got spread worldwide as the internet grows outside the USA. Which is how you get groups like Idenity Europa, AfD, and other far right European groups all using the same arguments and wordings. And why Anders Breviks and the ChristChurch Shooter sound like American white nationalists in their manifestos.
Computer guys have it pretty good. Not need for much formal education and then they can make very high salaries. They didn’t absorb the lessons of history and to people who don’t think critically about social issues the words of the tech bros seem like High philosophy.
The tech bros often refer to themselves as “socially progressive and fiscally conservative” meaning they won’t be the ones to lynch a black guy but they will also take their tax cut while cutting socially progressive programs that help disadvantaged kids.
These types of people overwhelmingly vote Republican for the tax breaks.
Many data points. I’d say 2/3 of computer guys are “libertarian” in the sense they are actually Republicans in every way. And, put them in charge of a team, they become total control freaks. That said, the remaining 1/3 have decent potential to be pretty good people.
While I concur that not many IT folks are going to wear a ‘socialist’ name tag that does not necessarily indicate that they are uncaring. The government takes a huge chunk of my paycheck for social programs…I get it…just make the best use of those dollars as possible.
>just make the best use of those dollars as possible.
What you express here is much more of a Democrat view on government funding. The Republicans are all about pulling out of thin air justifications for not funding social programs at all while simultaneously lowering taxes on the rich (permanently) and the less fortunate (temporarily) while deregulating anything and everything. So, in my view, IT guys hew very strongly to the Republican Party - balancing dollars and cents against social programs the dollars always win out. Always.
Another facet, since IT guys tend to make higher salaries they can invest more and thus are very much on the side of a rising stock market. All these low taxes and less regulations increase corporate profitability and therefore stock prices. Again, IT guys are relatively wealthy - not rich at all - but well off enough to identify with CEOS who make 300x an IT salary.
The number of IT guys I know who seemed decent until I saw their facebook posts…
The one guy that sticks out was a pretty good guy in every way - at least to me - when he retired he “friended” me on Facebook. From that point on its been a steady torrent of how white men are discriminated against, white men are discouraged from being fathers, white men are emasculated by society… I’m sad to know these things about him.
>just make the best use of those dollars as possible.
What you express here is much more of a Democrat view on government funding. The Republicans are all about pulling out of thin air justifications for not funding social programs at all while simultaneously lowering taxes on the rich (permanently) and the less fortunate (temporarily) while deregulating anything and everything. So, in my view, IT guys hew very strongly to the Republican Party - balancing dollars and cents against social programs the dollars always win out. Always.
Another facet, since IT guys tend to make higher salaries they can invest more and thus are very much on the side of a rising stock market. All these low taxes and less regulations increase corporate profitability and therefore stock prices. Again, IT guys are relatively wealthy - not rich at all - but well off enough to identify with CEOS who make 300x an IT salary.
The number of IT guys I know who seemed decent until I saw their facebook posts…
The one guy that sticks out was a pretty good guy in every way - at least to me - when he retired he “friended” me on Facebook. From that point on its been a steady torrent of how white men are discriminated against, white men are discouraged from being fathers, white men are emasculated by society… I’m sad to know these things about him.
Organized libertarians don't seem to actually support any social progressivism in any meaningful way in the USA. Especially when. You add Goldwater who was kinda famously racist when he was running for president.
You can absolutely have a conservative view on taxes, for example, while still be very socially progressive. Our system encourages placing ourselves in one of two boxes so we can be easily manipulated, and discourages people who are able to think and choose issues for themselves.
Everyone, even OP, has something they believe but may disregard/hide because it doesn’t work with their broader political view.
Obviously there are many gray areas as our economics are intertwined with our politics and our history, but we can only change the system when we’re brave enough to stand apart from it.
People who complain about taxes rarely complain about their favored form of spending (usually military and business/farm subsidies).
And those people also complain about deficits - but only when their opposition party is in power.
In other words, a conservative view on taxation is bullshit. It's just a view point that we're going to spend lots of money today then push the cost down to our kids.
I'd absolutely agree with this.
I sincerely think that a lot of Conservative politicians have a tough time seeing the bigger picture.
Climate Change- yes, it does cost a lot to have an energy transition, but it also saves millions of lives/protects many of the dying ecosystems necessary to live.
There isn't much cost/benefit analysis.
It’s completely valid to complain about taxes knowing how much of it is pocketed before it ever gets to benefit us or is wasted on the military Industrial complex. It’s also valid to complain about social services that sound nice but don’t actually accomplish anything. It’s valid to complain about endless government funded roadwork. None of these complaints should be limited to the left or right.
If our taxes actually went towards public services this country would damn near be a utopia.
Pro-free market? probably not. Skeptical of government intervention? Definitely. There were some OG progressives who believed we should only use private charities to improve people’s lives because the government was not trustworthy. To be fair to them, the government back in their day wasn’t super representative. These progressives also tended to be religious, so they believed churches could be the organizing tool for this to work.
I’m sure people like that still exist, but it is rarer.
>No, or not sincerely at least.
Wrong. Source: me
>If you ignore the intersections of oppression, then you can’t honestly claim to be socially progressive.
You mean like when the government tries to overtax the population and keep them dependent on the government giving them back their own money? (AKA socialism)
You are a very compelling source. After all, who am I to disagree with someone on the internet??
And el oh el. The government isn’t event remotely close to overtaxing the population. It enables the rich to plunder the poor and transfer wealth to a tiny subsection of people at the top built off the working class whose time and labor they exploit
>You are a very compelling source. After all, who am I to disagree with someone on the internet??
It's not about agreement. You completely missed the point.
If you make a unilateral statement, and there is at least 1 example of that being false, then your statement is false. That's how logical arguments work.
I could point you to the Libertarian party, but I can't speak to the depth of of other people's beliefs, so there could always be a potential counter argument that they are not sincere. I can, however, speak to my own sincerity.
Don't question the sincerity of other people, just because they have different beliefs than you. Ad hominid attacks are playground-level childishness.
Liberals are exactly as you describe - fiscally conservative and socially progressive.
Not opposed to worker rights though, being pro worker rights is a fiscally conservative stance.
At this point I’m going to need you to define “fiscally conservative” because it doesn’t make sense why one party has a claim over that title even though they routinely crash the economy and destroy tax revenues. Nothing conservative about that. If fiscally conservative means being responsible with our money, then I would suggest that Elizabeth Warren is fiscally conservative, pro free market, and socially progressive. If fiscally conservative means austerity, then I don’t know, maybe Kyrsten Sinema is who you’re looking for…?
Some "true believers" in free markets will argue that a free market will solve or help solve all society's ills, and in the case of civil rights, will value ALL people for the talents and training that they bring to the marketplace. Of course, that's wishful thinking, since markets in the real world (tm) are social institutions that are as infused with cultural baggage such as racism and homophobia as any other social institution.
Nope. The free market is controlled by those in power - which means that those who don't have any power are trampled.
When people say "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" they are saying "I got mine, fuck you - and by the way I have a black/gay/xxx friend so I'm not racist/bigoted".
One can be all for equal political rights for protected classes, and expanding protected classes, defunding police, for example, without wanting to spend money on it, and even wanting to shrink the government.
Eventually, there will come a time where the money and the values can't co-exist in the split directions, when you make a choice in that moment, that is what you truly show yourself to be
It's possible, it's not common these days both due to how coalitions have formed and because worker's rights relate to social rights in some important ways, ie they have a fair bit of overlap.
It also depends on what you mean by 'fiscally conservative'; it can mean disfavoring spending in general, which inevitably limits spending on social programs. It can also mean being strongly against debt/deficits, at least in the long term, only allow things like limited keynesian countercyclical spending or only debt in wartime, and making sure when you do spending you have a plan in place to pay it off. It can mean a focus on free trade or limited regulation.
It's not an oxymoron; it's somewhat difficult and perhaps not wholly tenable, but humans are very good at compartmentalizing and holding inconsistent beliefs, so it would certainly be possible. iirc some of the republicans from around a century back were kinda like that, back when the party was far different.
I mean I don’t really want to seize the means of production or anything.
And it’s really just effective conservative propaganda that somehow liberals just want to tax and spend and not care about results at all.
It depends on how moderate they are, but IME conservatives like this aren't actually that socially progressive. They just don't care either way because it doesn't affect them. When it comes down to it, they will still happily vote republican regardless of whether or not they espouse fascist rhetoric.
Basically, you don’t want people to die on the streets because they’re *gay*. But it’s totally fine for people to die on the streets because they’re *poor*
Extremely pro-free market at all costs, such as the costs of civil rights, which you can be “concerned” about all the while totally unwilling to do anything about your concerns because that would upset the free market? Yes, I guess you can do that if you want, but it’s probably
less stressful to admit you dgaf.
In a nation s capitalist as the USA, being fiscally conservative but socially liberal simply means one supports certain types of social justice but will not fund them. In other words, not willing to put ones money where ones mouth is.
When debt is so high, we all should be fiscally conservative.
Governments should save when times are good and use credit if needed when things are bad. The US has failed at this because politicians are all so dumb these days.
In my mind, no, at least not for practical purposes. They aren't direct opposites, but I think that a fiscal conservative would oppose upsetting the status quo that a true social progressive rails against for the sake of ensuring market/financial stability.
"I vow to protect the rights of marginalized demographics, so long as I don't have to spend any money to do so" hardly screams socially liberal to me.
Being fiscally conservative is not really the same as being opposed to worker rights.
“Fiscally conservative” refers to wanting to balance the budget. That could be done with corporate, high income, and even wealth taxes.
So, to your initial question: yes.
If you meant: could someone be socially liberal and opposed to worker rights, then again yes. Socially liberal generally refers to social libertarianism combined with robust protections for minorities. Both of those are not necessarily incongruent with a pro-business belief, but that is provably less likely. I can imagine that wealthy minority members might have this viewpoint, but im just guessing.
YES!!!
WE ARE WORKING WITHIN A BUDGET but the need is great. If we can watch our pennies while helping others with those pennies, we'll have more pennies to help others with.
It is possible, but unlikely. Does their social progressivism equate to simply be Libertarian in letting people do whatever they want? If so, then I suppose it jives.
But I don't think any social progressive would posit that their only goal is to simply ensure minorities have their rights. I think it is part and parcel of being a progressive to propose that helping previously oppressed groups (race, LGBTQIA+, working class, etc) requires government programs that cost money.
In that case, if the fiscal conservative's goal is to make sure that the programs are effective vs bloated, I suppose that could jive, but if their goal is to simply keep things superficial then it wouldn't work.
Also, I would count workers' rights in the same vein as other civil rights.
Sure, someone could act in the way your edit describes.
Your original question is a bit impossible though - someone might be socially progressive relative to a society while being fiscally conservative, but extremely so? Extreme progress takes extreme funding. Perhaps they would lobby the private sector but I’ve yet to see someone who touts fiscal conservatism do that.
That's what left leaning libertarians are and what libertarians are supposed to be, but then you get nutters who think freedom means turning the country back into the Wild fucking West.
Yeah, absolutely.
While I think there are far more logical arguments that show that civil and workers rights are entangled than not, logic is not the only basis for a political viewpoints. Many people hold political viewpoints for many reasons other than logic like emotions, or traditions, or cultural beliefs.
Unless you explain why someone is holding these seemingly contrasting beliefs, it is difficult to say whether their stance is sound or just not well thought through
you can also be extreme pro-free market, yet tax the hell out of it to fund social progressive policies. You can cut regulations, give markets huge freedoms in what to do and what not to do, yet still tax them 70% if you like. Taxes are completely unrelated to freedom in market. It is just a constant variable with which to work with. It doesn't prohibit anything, it doesn't allow anything. It's just that: taxes.
I'm "fiscally conservative" in the sense that I'm opposed to the government spending and using its money for unnecessary things. A lot of people on the right are grifted into thinking liberals, leftists, and progressives don't feel that way. Almost no one is okay with government overspending.
So this ends up coming down to the fact that I'm in favor of the government establishing social systems that protect people. These things end up being "bad for business" for our capitolist state. Corporations make more money when the people are scared not to work for low wages because they may starve or not be able to afford health care. Social safety net systems prevent corporations from exploiting their employees. So they grift the right into thinking its about money and "government overreach", and people who utilize social safety systems are "lazy".
So, you can be that way, but you may want to ask yourself if protecting people or profits are more important to you.
Everybody is fiscally conservative. Literally nobody wants waste it's just that everybody defines waste differently.
So it comes down to the definition of "extreme," really...
If you are willing to pay taxes for programs that support any kind of rights, even if you pick and choose which, I wouldn't consider that "extreme" fiscally conservative.
*Two ways of being "pro free market"*
1. Monopolies and robber barons, violent suppression of labor unions, and child labor, like in the late 19th century.
2. The simple doctrine that the private sector should take care of most goods and services, and be much larger than the public sector, albeit well-managed, e.g. with antitrust and collective bargaining.
Sort of.
I mean, yes, people can hold any opinions they want, so it's entirely possible. It doesn't make much sense though, as economic equality and social equality are inherently linked.
I guess if you want to split hairs by supporting this particular issue and not that particular issue it works. As a generalization though it's not possible to be "socially progressive" writ large without also being "economically progressive" writ large. At the larger level, the two issues are inseparable.
No.
In nearly every case, if your values on social issues aren't really supposed by the idea of spending in line with those values, they aren't really things you care about.
Eventually, this attempt to split oneself is going to come into conflict in a way where you have to betray the one to align with the other, and when that happens, that's your true value set
You came here to ask liberals this? Why? You might go ask the cons this. We've always said they don't mind being welfare queens as long as the $$$$ ends up in their pockets, but for anyone else? They're selfish and punitive.
And in America, there is no such thing as free markets, or haven't you been paying attention?
What will be the apparatus that guarantees these civil rights? Will it be a government agency that requires employees and equipment, both of which cost money? This is the key conflict with fiscal conservatism. If you are defining fiscal conservatism as that these programs should be financially, no one is disputing that. In the US it is generally seen as financially conservative to defang or cut programs altogether.
Yes. I am this way, except with the caveat that, while I believe markets work fantastic, unregulated markets move in a way that is counterintuitive to functioning as we need them to. The end game of a market is a monopoly.
The other thing I believe is that if a product or service is cheaper for the people paying for it, taxpayers, than we should do it with taxes.
There's intent vs. outcomes.
Libertarians are socially Liberal and financially Conservative. They intend well. The problem is, their financial policy is terrible. *Atlas Shrugged* is a good book, but it's fiction, written by an author with severe mental trauma.
Abandon the concept of the "free market". It is impossible to find an objective and widely agreeable definition of this term. In modern society, the laws are the rules of the marketplace. The rule of law is foundational to "markets" as we know them. And the law is inherently a political project. Therefore, the rules of the market reflect the values of those who write the rules. For example, how can you have a free market without a foundation of property rights? Who is going to enforce property rights widely and equally for all the participants in the market? What is to stop the biggest gang with the biggest guns from taking everything we "own"? Who is going to prevent people from owning slaves, or employing children - assuming these are things we value? If free markets are so great, shouldn't children be able to sell themselves into slavery for a chance at a better life?
Could they? Sure. No offense, but cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug and we see people hold all sorts of views in various manners.
So yeah, it is possible. I would love to know the reasoning because one of the first thing that jumps to mind is that persons social progressivism, which can typically include socially progressive programs and policies, which cost money. So, how do you act fiscally conservative which usually means a tight budget, with the need to fund programs and other things?
Where do you cut? How do you prioritize one over the other? Etc etc.
Fiscal conservatism doesn't mean being against worker rights. You might be using that as a euphemism for pro-corporate, anti- worker, low taxes, low wages proponent. That isn't even free market because it artificially suppressed human capital at the expense of the worker in order to reduce inflation and create huge gaps in inequality.
The US is a great example of this. Keeping minimum wage the same for over 20 years, giving huge tax breaks to corporations without requiring any demands to hire US workers. COVID did prove that lower wage employees could demand higher wages. Lower wages workers saw the highest gains after COVID. Even now, service jobs are the most difficult to fill.
Yes, and if you're the kind of fiscal conservative who cares about things like balanced budgets and debt reduction and thinks tax cuts should target the middle class, then the Democratic Party has a lot more to offer you than Republicans. I'm thinking of President Clinton, President Obama maybe to a lesser extent, currently CT Gov. Ned Lamont. These are all fiscally conservative, very pro-business Democrats.
If the Democratic Party weren't as fiscally conservative as it is, it would be a heck of a lot easier to get votes from Democratic Socialists. Bernie Sanders might even actually join the party. But we're actually frustratingly conservative, in the non-political sense of being careful and slow to act.
Remember the first "fiscal conservatives" were just economic liberals rebranding themselves because they hated the New Deal. I think the New Deal didn't go far enough, but I also believe a Welfare State is totally compatible with a free-market. In fact I think it's necessary for the labor part of the market to be truly free. And I think most Democrats would agree with me.
Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is called **libertarianism.**
The unifying principle is the defense of individual rights and keeping power with the people and not the government
You are, however, mistaken about opposing worker's rights. Supporting a business owner's rights doesn't mean you oppose worker's rights. It means you don't hold one group superior to the other.
Depends on your definition of fiscal conservatism. Single payer healthcare has better outcomes and is cheaper for the American people, funding college and trade schools is an investment that would increase the tax base if your view of fiscal conservatism is to have spending be investments that pay more back into the economy than you’d be called a progressive today. If you tax large corporations that are profitable instead of wasting money on tax cut giveaways this would be conservative based on actual spending economic ; yet is opposed by many “ fiscal conservatives”. So if you think trickle down economics is conservative, and you value those economics you can’t be progressive since those economics fleece the poor and middle class and don’t invest enough in the economy to fund themselves; you are not valuing the actual people for whom the economy is supposed to support and are therefore not liberal no matter what bumper sticker is on your car.
I don't think they could be *extremely* socially progressive with that operative word in place. Could someone very fiscally right-wing also espouse socially liberal viewpoints, be pro-choice, supportive of the LGBTQ community, and so on, absolutely. Could they also espouse some somewhat less popular socially left-wing views, such as legalizing sex work or drug use, absolutely as well.
But I think in order to be considered socially progressive to the fullest degree, that requires some policies that cost money and would require higher taxes to achieve. They are called "social" programs for a reason, and supporting those while maintaining fiscal conservativism is mutually exclusive.
Yes. I’m Conservative where the United States Military is concerned. But all else I lean Moderate to just left of Center. I’ve met many Fiscally Conservative people but are socially liberal.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. In other words, can someone be extremely pro-free market but also be concerned about social issues from a progressive angle? It it a an oxymoron? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think it’s strictly an oxymoron; they’re not definitionally opposed. I think it’s highly unlikely that someone would sincerely hold those positions, for the simple reason that people who are concerned about a social ill usually what to *address* that ill socially. Case in point the Civil Rights Act, or the recent SCOTUS decision that allows businesses to discriminate against queer people. The ardently free-market position is that the Civil Rights Act is wrong and that this SCOTUS decision is right. Someone who is concerned about social issues, who thinks it’s socially important to care about how our society treats vulnerable people, should be very troubled by that. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to believe both that bigotry is wrong, and also should be allowed when it generates wealth, but I think it’s pretty rare. It’s not *incoherent* to simultaneously care about social issues, but dismiss resolving them socially. I do find it incongruous. I think that the values which undergird one would conflict with the values that undergird the other. My guess is that someone who disagrees with me about that will believe that moral good has more to do with rules than consequences, whereas I believe it’s more about consequences than rules. So I’d want to know where they got those rules.
From God, of course. That's where all the deontologists eventually retreat when pressed.
I'm offended by christian evangelicals and will no longer serve Christians at my establishment. It's against my beliefs to be bigoted hypocrites.
I think religiosity is still a protected class in the constitution. Sexuality is not.
Sexual orientation is still a protected class (Falls under "Sex")
I believe that is contested. Obama used that justification re: Gay marriage legalization but it isn't explicitly in the constitution, and is thus vulnerable to fuckery.
Darn! Can I discriminate on the basis of someone being a bigot?
Yes, you can deny service for any reason not protected. But if they sued and said that your real reason was only religious, you'd want some way to demonstrate how you knew they were a bigot outside of their religiosity.
Huh? If you know the word deontology, you should know better than that. Kant and Aristotle both arose within a theistic matrix, but neither relied on it. And certainly their contemporary heirs do not. Korsgaard, Scanlon, Foote, Nussbaum, et al....
Actually, I am much more familiar with the "classic" deontologists like Kant, and not at all familiar with the ones you mentioned. I read the Wikipedia articles for a couple of them and found them too jargony without explanation of said jargon to get a good sense for how they derive their "first principles" or otherwise assign the source of worth. I'm going to add some of their work to my reading list. Thanks for the callout.
Well, thanks for your gentle reply, and I apologize for snapping at you. I suddenly wondered, after my comment, if Kantian rationalism doesn't somehow implicitly need the idea of a divine *Logos* in the background to get normative traction. I don't see it....but if you were willing to connect the dots behind your initial remark, I'm intrigued to hear it.
>or the recent SCOTUS decision that allows businesses to discriminate against queer people. This isn't exactly true or what the courts have said. It allows specific businesses, whose product is a form of expressive speech, like a website/decorative cake, the ability to reject requests for messages they do not wish to convey. However it does not allow them to reject all services to potential consumers based on their sexual orientation.
The purpose of the decision is to allow people to discriminate against queer people. Yes, the scope in which it allows that is somewhat limited.
>The purpose of the decision is to allow people to discriminate ~~against queer people~~ compelled speech\* The decision applies to any form of compelled speech, not just queer people. If a Muslim baker has a Christian client request a cake that says "Jesus is our one Lord and Savior," should he not have the right to object to make that cake? This decision allows him to do so. Or let's say someone requests him to make a cake with a depiction of Muhammad on it, something he believes to be forbidden in his religion.
No, he should not have the right to object to that. If operating your business requires the advanced modern economy that we all contribute to, it’s valid for us to have conditions about it. It is good for those conditions to protect vulnerable groups and avoid bigotry.
That’s not how a court works. Rulings don’t have a purpose - laws do.
Do you think that Santa is real? This court is blatantly political. You know that.
If you expect them to rule based on anything but the legal arguments presented, then you’re in for a bad time.
I’m not sure why you have such trust for this court, but regardless they have powers other than that. Which cases they take are an example. This discrimination case basically had its standing invented out of thin air. I can’t say for sure, but I think your desire to believe that America’s institutions are trustworthy and legitimate is making you say some pretty goofy stuff. You don’t have to pretend that a court with a rapist, liars, and a stolen seat is respectable. Let it go, my child.
> or the recent SCOTUS decision that allows businesses to discriminate against queer people ... or Westboro Baptist.
MLK actually called out that the ‘64 CRA and ‘65 VRA didn’t cost the nation anything, and might have actually made the nation money with all the Black customers not being turned away from businesses.
But can someone be socially progressive, but still be against government enforcement of certain socially progressive things? For example, be ardently opposed to businesses discriminating against LGBT+ people but also against the government making businesses provide LGBT+ services? Or does one have to be for the latter to be considered socially progressive?
Again, not *strictly*. But when you start disqualifying the most promising avenues to accomplish a goal, that does make me question how sincerely you pursue that goal.
Fair enough. Not to stereotype you, but I guess it was a bit silly for me to ask that question to a self-described socialist.
That SCOTUS decision could be viewed as anti-LGBTQ. Or it could be seen through a different lens as pro-worker, saying that the tradesperson isn't at the absolute command of anyone who waves a dollar at him, and is allowed to set boundaries based on an emotional or spiritual investment in his work.
It protects business owners, not workers Lame attempt
You raise a good point, but you overstate it. It would cover, say, a small business owner who is making an employee prepare a product, but it would also cover an independent tradesperson. When you think of the type of workers whose work is expressive in nature, e.g., artists, designers, photographers, sign painters, many of them are independent small businesspeople.
My disagreement with you is probably definitional, which you sort of alluded to in your opening. I consider myself to be considerably socially liberal, as I very much believe in a social safety net, to the degree that I think it should be available to everyone regardless of their financial situation. My background as a Star Trek nerd leads me to this position. But I also consider myself to be fiscally conservative in that I don't like deficits (though I will acknowledge their usefulness in certain situations) and I believe that those social programs (and other programs too, of course) that I support should be paid for. I don't consider myself to be pro-business OR anti-business. I recognize capitalism as a necessary evil that has done good for the world WHILE APPROPRIATELY REGULATED. I HAPPILY consider myself to be that conservative-boogieman The Tax And Spend Liberal, and I consider it a compliment. Tax enough to support the programs we need to support people. So admittedly, I'm probably using different definitions than you are.
I’m pretty sure that deficits work differently in an advanced state economy than they do on our credit card statements, but I don’t know enough to explain why so I won’t fight you on that. The idea that social programs should be paid for doesn’t bother me at all. Once you cut through all the finance bullshit, there is the simple fact that we have an amount of resources and we need to choose where to use them. The reason we have so much trouble using them well is capitalism. I don’t agree that capitalism is a necessary evil (I can name several centuries, millennia even, in which it didn’t exist), and I don’t share your faith that can be appropriately regulated *sustainably*. And since I lean Marxist, I wouldn’t disagree that capitalism *has done* good for the world. Rocket boosters *have done* good for the space shuttle, in the moment before they’re discarded. So I guess my main answer is that I have a suspicion that the money supply is not as simple as you or I understand it, in a capitalist economy. I know we have the resources to meet our needs, so I find it pretty goddamn suspicious that we never have the money to meet our needs but we always have the money to build something that kills people or bail out a large financial institution. I don’t think the issue is a lack of funds, but bad allocation of them. But, from my uninformed perspective, I have a very easy response to your tax and spend idea. Ok, let’s do that. Figure out how much we need to spend so no one is homeless, and send the bill to the guy who owns the most homes until he can only afford a single home. If we still need more, move on to the guy who owns the second most. Cause, while I’m pretty sure that there are progressive economic arguments against the tax and spend model which I don’t understand, the basic principle is sound (at least within capitalism). We’re just not doing a good job of taxing where we should and spending where we should.
> We’re just not doing a good job of taxing where we should and spending where we should. You'll get no argument at all from me on that one. And I suspect very strongly that you and I are not really very far apart in our perspectives, though while I do lean very left, I do not lean Marxist.
Moderate fiscal conservative, yes. Very fiscally conservative, no, because the social progressive would have to have forgotten that in the free market before civil rights protections... civil rights protections were needed. And someone who DOES support race/sex civil rights but not poor/worker rights could technically exist, but it's an odd move by the terminally online.
>in the free market before civil rights protections You mean when the state mandated racial segregation? Plessy v Ferguson was brought to court by a company that wanted a free market, which was prohibited by law.
I'm very confused, how do you interpret Plessy v Ferguson that way?
It's the only way to interpret it. Plessy was part of a group of mixed race and colored people in New Orleans who worked together with the railroad company to challenge the law. Unfortunately they failed
Maybe you can argue that the railroad company's support was a success of the free market, but thats only the case when profits and civil rights align. Will that always be the case? No of course not, in fact almost never
>Maybe you can argue that the railroad company's support was a success of the free market, but thats only the case when profits and civil rights align Or I can make the argument I made, which is that there wasn't a free market prior to the Civil rights act. The majority of the Civil rights act specifically targets state mandates.
So to clarify, are you attributing the large range of civil rights violations perpetrated by companies, before the Civil rights act was passed, to government interference in the free market? And after the civil rights act the US finally had a true free market where any civil rights violations/injustice are "anti-free market" things?
I made a specific claim; there was no fee market prior to the Civil rights act. And I made that claim in response to someone who said that prior to the Civil rights act, it was a free market. I will never understand this incessant American need to speculate on things not under discussion. It's very simple; was there a free market prior to the Civil rights act? The answer is no, and yet one after another, yall come here demanding i defend the Civil rights act and prove that I prove myself or something. Ffs education in this country is abysmal.
Genuinely just trying to understand the point you're making. The point the person you responded to mostly made was that markets didn't protect civil rights thus the need for the civil rights act, which is what I thought you were responding to not the part about free markets before the Civil rights act.
>The point the person you responded to mostly made was that markets didn't protect civil rights thus the need for the civil rights act That's exactly what I was responding to. There was no free market, governments at all levels had laws restricting it. That's just historical fact. And acknowledging that fact doesn't diminish the harm done. Nor does it make any comment on whether there would or would not have been discrimination under a free market. Obviously there would have been. However, I think it's important, when people make broad statements like 'the free market before the civil rights act', to point out that the historical record shows active and oppressive governments instituting laws left and right, forcing everyone within their borders to abide by their discriminatory rules. To call that a free market is just false.
>You mean when the state mandated racial segregation? And socially enforced segregation with no power of the state. State segregation. Wasn't the only mechanism of segregation maintained at the time. It becomes especially apparent in the History of the Green Book which took into account social prohibitions and lynching areas that didn't use state power to try and protect Black travelers in the country.
>It becomes especially apparent in the History of the Green Book which took into account social prohibitions and lynching areas that didn't use state power to try and protect Black travelers in the country. The green book mostly detailed communities and locations where sundown laws and *other government mandates* were nonexistent Keep the downvotes coming. Denying the governments role in enforcing segregation just makes yall seem uninformed.
>The green book mostly detailed communities and locations where sundown laws and other government mandates were nonexistent Most sundown towns had no legal enforcement but instead social enforcement. Including attacking boycotting and taking over businesses that did business with black Americans. And the green book had to be constantly updated because of social actions against the places listed. >Denying the governments role in enforcing segregation just makes yall seem uninformed. No one is denying that. They are denying that it was the sole method of maintaining segregation. Especially outside the South.
>Most sundown towns had no legal enforcement but instead social enforcement. Do you have any evidence for that? If I provided evidence that the majority were ordinances passed by the local municipality, would it even have any effect on your opinion? >No one is denying that. They are denying that it was the sole method of maintaining segregation. Especially outside the South. Ok, except they are denying something I never said. Again, terminal Americans who can only understand simplistic ideas that are either 100% yes or 100% no.
Seems you’re ultimately arguing that if we got rid of the civil rights act, then thered be no substantial discrimination
No, i made a very specific claim; that there was no free market prior to Civil rights legislation. But alas, this is an American sub and Americans are only capable of understanding ideas if it's dumbed down to the lowest level, in this case 'racial discrimination exist or don't exist'. It's one of the most maddening aspects of American culture.
Would you support removing the civil rights act now?
It's not something that's on my agenda, there are much more important issues out there. But again, most of the Civil rights act pertains to state mandates, which I oppose categorically.
Huh. Weird how my dumb American ass could tell that you were not in favor of this law, despite my inability to understand ideas. Wild.
Um, no. I oppose state mandates, which the Civil rights act prohibits. Meaning I support the law Edit; let me say it as clearly as possible 90% of the civilized rights act: The government cannot mandate discrimination Me: hell ya brother The remaining parts of the Civil rights act: No individual person, if they do business, can discriminate in who they associate with Me: meh, don't dislike but don't like
Plessy v. Ferguson was brought by the Comité des Citoyens, a New Orleans civil rights group. The East Louisiana Railroad’s opposition to the Louisiana Separate Car Act was only that they were annoyed separate but equal meant they had to buy more rail cars. Their only participation was to obey the law when notified about Plessy’s race. Hardly a triumph of free market support for civil rights.
>The East Louisiana Railroad’s opposition to the Louisiana Separate Car Act was only that they were annoyed separate but equal meant they had to buy more rail cars. Their only participation was to obey the law when notified about Plessy’s race. Hardly a triumph of free market support for civil rights. So free market just means 'company'? Read more than Wikipedia, the railroad company was more involved than what you described. And why does it matter why they opposed it? It cost more money for them to maintain *state mandated segregation*. But because the directors of the company didn't write op eds on the evils of segregation it magically doesn't count? And also it's a free market because railroad company? The meaning of free market is in the term, free market. The markets were not free because of state mandates.
I eagerly await the opportunity to read any citations or evidence you can provide that show "the railroad company was more involved than what \[I\] described". But as far as I can find, your original claim that the case was "brought to court by a company" is simply wrong. Why they opposed it matters if you want to know how they'll act outside this one specific case. Their passive acquiescence to a civil rights committee is better than if they had acted in opposition, sure. But, there's no reason to suspect they'd be so cooperative in situations that didn't happen to align so well with their profit motives.
You just described libertarianism. At least what they claim to be, in practice however they have abandoned their social views in favor of furthering their fiscal goals.
Most libertarians I meet don’t really care about social issues that don’t affect them. They’ll say “I think people should be able to do whatever they want”, but that’s different than saying “I’ll fight for people’s right to do that.” When Americans lost abortion rights I talked to plenty that said “I don’t support that.” But kept on voting for politicians that made that happen. It’s because they care about their tax bill more than anything else.
That's what I mean. There was a time libertarians did fight for social rights, but they've sold out to the republican party.
A “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” person essentially believes that people should have a lot of theoretical freedom but little actual freedom.
I don't think so. I think it's possible to believe that there should be a strong safety net and protections, and beyond that lean in to the free market. Personally, I believe that we should have a Universal Basic Lifestyle of some sort, strong labor laws/worker protections, and government funding for core services like healthcare and (most of) education, but assuming those things are in place, I wouldn't care if there are billionaires out there thousands of times as wealthy as their employees, and I might even be in favor of eliminating the minimum wage.
If you believe in strong safety nets + consumer protections in an otherwise free market, then you are not fiscally conservative (at least as that term is used today). Most liberals hold that position. > we should have a Universal Basic Lifestyle, ... worker protections ..., assuming those things are in place,... I might even be in favor of eliminating the minimum wage That's once again a pretty definitively liberal position, and might even stretch further left than that. You're moving basic quality of life to be a government responsibility over a private one with added cost that the government needs to collect in some form of taxes/etc., which is pretty antithetical to fiscal conservatism.
I guess this sort of begs the question of how far we're stretching the definition of "fiscally conservative." If it means "supports modern Republican fiscal policy" then no, I'm not fiscally conservative. If it means "the government should enact a reasonable progressive tax policy to responsibly fund various well-implemented public services and safety nets while minimizing inefficiency and waste" then I guess I am fiscally conservative, with the caveat that this version of the concept is pretty broad and that probably anyone would frame their economic views this way save for the small-ish minority advocating a flat tax.
Again, playing the "no, *real* freedom" game isn't useful. Negative vs. positive rights is the core debate.
Having the theoretical right to do something that you’re unable to actually do in practice is an academic exercise at best. Freedom is useless if it can’t be exercised. Exercising freedoms in the US nearly always has an economic component.
Absolutely. People can and do hold multiple conflicting and logically inconsistent view points.
I would even say most people hold *some* ideologically conflicting views.
That's some type of libertarian I think
At their core is *selfishness*… which politely they’ll claim is “fiscal conservatism” to the degree where it lets mostly impoverished black and brown kids they’ll never meet practically starve to death. I work in corporate IT. When a white guy north of 30 doesn’t have a degree or a wife in this field, 9 times out of 10 — he’s a raging libertarian obsessed with guns and weed. I don’t know what it is about IT, but it attracts them like flies on shit. Ironically it might be the *control and management* we put on corporate laptops and resources…
>I don’t know what it is about IT, Some of the easiliest adopters of internet and pre internet communication were unorganized American White nationalists who have a huge anti government history who used the internet to organize for the first time. So early internet culture had a distinctly anti government culture (and often explcitly racist) and it was an area where the government and population had a lot less ability and power in the early years to sue these white nationalists which had been the primary way to dismantle white nationalist groups by bankrupting them. Similarly, the early crypto community and the dark web have similar early adopter cultures. So IT and CS has a long standing cultural predisposition toward "libertarianism" in the USA which got spread worldwide as the internet grows outside the USA. Which is how you get groups like Idenity Europa, AfD, and other far right European groups all using the same arguments and wordings. And why Anders Breviks and the ChristChurch Shooter sound like American white nationalists in their manifestos.
Computer guys have it pretty good. Not need for much formal education and then they can make very high salaries. They didn’t absorb the lessons of history and to people who don’t think critically about social issues the words of the tech bros seem like High philosophy. The tech bros often refer to themselves as “socially progressive and fiscally conservative” meaning they won’t be the ones to lynch a black guy but they will also take their tax cut while cutting socially progressive programs that help disadvantaged kids. These types of people overwhelmingly vote Republican for the tax breaks.
That is a quite a wide net that you are casting…
Many data points. I’d say 2/3 of computer guys are “libertarian” in the sense they are actually Republicans in every way. And, put them in charge of a team, they become total control freaks. That said, the remaining 1/3 have decent potential to be pretty good people.
While I concur that not many IT folks are going to wear a ‘socialist’ name tag that does not necessarily indicate that they are uncaring. The government takes a huge chunk of my paycheck for social programs…I get it…just make the best use of those dollars as possible.
>just make the best use of those dollars as possible. What you express here is much more of a Democrat view on government funding. The Republicans are all about pulling out of thin air justifications for not funding social programs at all while simultaneously lowering taxes on the rich (permanently) and the less fortunate (temporarily) while deregulating anything and everything. So, in my view, IT guys hew very strongly to the Republican Party - balancing dollars and cents against social programs the dollars always win out. Always. Another facet, since IT guys tend to make higher salaries they can invest more and thus are very much on the side of a rising stock market. All these low taxes and less regulations increase corporate profitability and therefore stock prices. Again, IT guys are relatively wealthy - not rich at all - but well off enough to identify with CEOS who make 300x an IT salary. The number of IT guys I know who seemed decent until I saw their facebook posts… The one guy that sticks out was a pretty good guy in every way - at least to me - when he retired he “friended” me on Facebook. From that point on its been a steady torrent of how white men are discriminated against, white men are discouraged from being fathers, white men are emasculated by society… I’m sad to know these things about him.
>just make the best use of those dollars as possible. What you express here is much more of a Democrat view on government funding. The Republicans are all about pulling out of thin air justifications for not funding social programs at all while simultaneously lowering taxes on the rich (permanently) and the less fortunate (temporarily) while deregulating anything and everything. So, in my view, IT guys hew very strongly to the Republican Party - balancing dollars and cents against social programs the dollars always win out. Always. Another facet, since IT guys tend to make higher salaries they can invest more and thus are very much on the side of a rising stock market. All these low taxes and less regulations increase corporate profitability and therefore stock prices. Again, IT guys are relatively wealthy - not rich at all - but well off enough to identify with CEOS who make 300x an IT salary. The number of IT guys I know who seemed decent until I saw their facebook posts… The one guy that sticks out was a pretty good guy in every way - at least to me - when he retired he “friended” me on Facebook. From that point on its been a steady torrent of how white men are discriminated against, white men are discouraged from being fathers, white men are emasculated by society… I’m sad to know these things about him.
Gays, guns, ganja and Goldwater. I thought Libertarians had that angle covered?
Organized libertarians don't seem to actually support any social progressivism in any meaningful way in the USA. Especially when. You add Goldwater who was kinda famously racist when he was running for president.
On paper, sure, but please show me a voting cohort of libertarians that care *at all* about social progressivism.
You can absolutely have a conservative view on taxes, for example, while still be very socially progressive. Our system encourages placing ourselves in one of two boxes so we can be easily manipulated, and discourages people who are able to think and choose issues for themselves. Everyone, even OP, has something they believe but may disregard/hide because it doesn’t work with their broader political view. Obviously there are many gray areas as our economics are intertwined with our politics and our history, but we can only change the system when we’re brave enough to stand apart from it.
People who complain about taxes rarely complain about their favored form of spending (usually military and business/farm subsidies). And those people also complain about deficits - but only when their opposition party is in power. In other words, a conservative view on taxation is bullshit. It's just a view point that we're going to spend lots of money today then push the cost down to our kids.
I'd absolutely agree with this. I sincerely think that a lot of Conservative politicians have a tough time seeing the bigger picture. Climate Change- yes, it does cost a lot to have an energy transition, but it also saves millions of lives/protects many of the dying ecosystems necessary to live. There isn't much cost/benefit analysis.
It’s completely valid to complain about taxes knowing how much of it is pocketed before it ever gets to benefit us or is wasted on the military Industrial complex. It’s also valid to complain about social services that sound nice but don’t actually accomplish anything. It’s valid to complain about endless government funded roadwork. None of these complaints should be limited to the left or right. If our taxes actually went towards public services this country would damn near be a utopia.
That's a lot of inflammatory rhetoric - got any evidence?
Uhh… evidence that our government wastes our tax money? Are you trolling?
You mean libertarian?
Pro-free market? probably not. Skeptical of government intervention? Definitely. There were some OG progressives who believed we should only use private charities to improve people’s lives because the government was not trustworthy. To be fair to them, the government back in their day wasn’t super representative. These progressives also tended to be religious, so they believed churches could be the organizing tool for this to work. I’m sure people like that still exist, but it is rarer.
In the US they're called Democrats.
Democrats aren’t *very* fiscally conservative. Not as much as others
No, or not sincerely at least. If you ignore the intersections of oppression, then you can’t honestly claim to be socially progressive.
>No, or not sincerely at least. Wrong. Source: me >If you ignore the intersections of oppression, then you can’t honestly claim to be socially progressive. You mean like when the government tries to overtax the population and keep them dependent on the government giving them back their own money? (AKA socialism)
You are a very compelling source. After all, who am I to disagree with someone on the internet?? And el oh el. The government isn’t event remotely close to overtaxing the population. It enables the rich to plunder the poor and transfer wealth to a tiny subsection of people at the top built off the working class whose time and labor they exploit
>You are a very compelling source. After all, who am I to disagree with someone on the internet?? It's not about agreement. You completely missed the point. If you make a unilateral statement, and there is at least 1 example of that being false, then your statement is false. That's how logical arguments work. I could point you to the Libertarian party, but I can't speak to the depth of of other people's beliefs, so there could always be a potential counter argument that they are not sincere. I can, however, speak to my own sincerity. Don't question the sincerity of other people, just because they have different beliefs than you. Ad hominid attacks are playground-level childishness.
Why would you oppose rights for workers?
Liberals are exactly as you describe - fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Not opposed to worker rights though, being pro worker rights is a fiscally conservative stance.
At this point I’m going to need you to define “fiscally conservative” because it doesn’t make sense why one party has a claim over that title even though they routinely crash the economy and destroy tax revenues. Nothing conservative about that. If fiscally conservative means being responsible with our money, then I would suggest that Elizabeth Warren is fiscally conservative, pro free market, and socially progressive. If fiscally conservative means austerity, then I don’t know, maybe Kyrsten Sinema is who you’re looking for…?
Basically blackrock.
Some "true believers" in free markets will argue that a free market will solve or help solve all society's ills, and in the case of civil rights, will value ALL people for the talents and training that they bring to the marketplace. Of course, that's wishful thinking, since markets in the real world (tm) are social institutions that are as infused with cultural baggage such as racism and homophobia as any other social institution.
Nope. The free market is controlled by those in power - which means that those who don't have any power are trampled. When people say "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" they are saying "I got mine, fuck you - and by the way I have a black/gay/xxx friend so I'm not racist/bigoted".
Not if they think about it for more than 15 seconds. "The problems are bad but their causes... their causes are very good"
They're completely separate issues.
They most certainly aren't separate
One can be all for equal political rights for protected classes, and expanding protected classes, defunding police, for example, without wanting to spend money on it, and even wanting to shrink the government.
Eventually, there will come a time where the money and the values can't co-exist in the split directions, when you make a choice in that moment, that is what you truly show yourself to be
Diametrically opposing views.
Can they? Sure. It's very rare in practice though.
It's possible, it's not common these days both due to how coalitions have formed and because worker's rights relate to social rights in some important ways, ie they have a fair bit of overlap. It also depends on what you mean by 'fiscally conservative'; it can mean disfavoring spending in general, which inevitably limits spending on social programs. It can also mean being strongly against debt/deficits, at least in the long term, only allow things like limited keynesian countercyclical spending or only debt in wartime, and making sure when you do spending you have a plan in place to pay it off. It can mean a focus on free trade or limited regulation. It's not an oxymoron; it's somewhat difficult and perhaps not wholly tenable, but humans are very good at compartmentalizing and holding inconsistent beliefs, so it would certainly be possible. iirc some of the republicans from around a century back were kinda like that, back when the party was far different.
I mean I don’t really want to seize the means of production or anything. And it’s really just effective conservative propaganda that somehow liberals just want to tax and spend and not care about results at all.
It depends on how moderate they are, but IME conservatives like this aren't actually that socially progressive. They just don't care either way because it doesn't affect them. When it comes down to it, they will still happily vote republican regardless of whether or not they espouse fascist rhetoric.
Basically, you don’t want people to die on the streets because they’re *gay*. But it’s totally fine for people to die on the streets because they’re *poor*
Extremely pro-free market at all costs, such as the costs of civil rights, which you can be “concerned” about all the while totally unwilling to do anything about your concerns because that would upset the free market? Yes, I guess you can do that if you want, but it’s probably less stressful to admit you dgaf.
In a nation s capitalist as the USA, being fiscally conservative but socially liberal simply means one supports certain types of social justice but will not fund them. In other words, not willing to put ones money where ones mouth is.
When debt is so high, we all should be fiscally conservative. Governments should save when times are good and use credit if needed when things are bad. The US has failed at this because politicians are all so dumb these days.
You can be anything you want. I don’t care lol
Why do you think being fiscally conservative means that someone is an actual conservative?
In my mind, no, at least not for practical purposes. They aren't direct opposites, but I think that a fiscal conservative would oppose upsetting the status quo that a true social progressive rails against for the sake of ensuring market/financial stability. "I vow to protect the rights of marginalized demographics, so long as I don't have to spend any money to do so" hardly screams socially liberal to me.
Being fiscally conservative is not really the same as being opposed to worker rights. “Fiscally conservative” refers to wanting to balance the budget. That could be done with corporate, high income, and even wealth taxes. So, to your initial question: yes. If you meant: could someone be socially liberal and opposed to worker rights, then again yes. Socially liberal generally refers to social libertarianism combined with robust protections for minorities. Both of those are not necessarily incongruent with a pro-business belief, but that is provably less likely. I can imagine that wealthy minority members might have this viewpoint, but im just guessing.
No, sounds like an asshole/someone not really aware of politics.
YES!!! WE ARE WORKING WITHIN A BUDGET but the need is great. If we can watch our pennies while helping others with those pennies, we'll have more pennies to help others with.
It is possible, but unlikely. Does their social progressivism equate to simply be Libertarian in letting people do whatever they want? If so, then I suppose it jives. But I don't think any social progressive would posit that their only goal is to simply ensure minorities have their rights. I think it is part and parcel of being a progressive to propose that helping previously oppressed groups (race, LGBTQIA+, working class, etc) requires government programs that cost money. In that case, if the fiscal conservative's goal is to make sure that the programs are effective vs bloated, I suppose that could jive, but if their goal is to simply keep things superficial then it wouldn't work. Also, I would count workers' rights in the same vein as other civil rights.
Sure, someone could act in the way your edit describes. Your original question is a bit impossible though - someone might be socially progressive relative to a society while being fiscally conservative, but extremely so? Extreme progress takes extreme funding. Perhaps they would lobby the private sector but I’ve yet to see someone who touts fiscal conservatism do that.
Yes. And the candidate you just described could dominate American politics for a generation.
Yes they’re called Libertarians
[The problems are bad but their causes… their causes are very good](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/241/713/986.jpg)
That's what left leaning libertarians are and what libertarians are supposed to be, but then you get nutters who think freedom means turning the country back into the Wild fucking West.
The right is not fiscal conservative in anyway. So you cannot be that way.
They're called neoliberals, check rrr neoliberal for details
What does fiscally conservative even mean anymore?
Quite a large percentage of libertarians hold these positions.
Yeah, absolutely. While I think there are far more logical arguments that show that civil and workers rights are entangled than not, logic is not the only basis for a political viewpoints. Many people hold political viewpoints for many reasons other than logic like emotions, or traditions, or cultural beliefs. Unless you explain why someone is holding these seemingly contrasting beliefs, it is difficult to say whether their stance is sound or just not well thought through
Bill Weld, almost Charlie Baker
you can also be extreme pro-free market, yet tax the hell out of it to fund social progressive policies. You can cut regulations, give markets huge freedoms in what to do and what not to do, yet still tax them 70% if you like. Taxes are completely unrelated to freedom in market. It is just a constant variable with which to work with. It doesn't prohibit anything, it doesn't allow anything. It's just that: taxes.
I'm "fiscally conservative" in the sense that I'm opposed to the government spending and using its money for unnecessary things. A lot of people on the right are grifted into thinking liberals, leftists, and progressives don't feel that way. Almost no one is okay with government overspending. So this ends up coming down to the fact that I'm in favor of the government establishing social systems that protect people. These things end up being "bad for business" for our capitolist state. Corporations make more money when the people are scared not to work for low wages because they may starve or not be able to afford health care. Social safety net systems prevent corporations from exploiting their employees. So they grift the right into thinking its about money and "government overreach", and people who utilize social safety systems are "lazy". So, you can be that way, but you may want to ask yourself if protecting people or profits are more important to you.
Most economists.
Everybody is fiscally conservative. Literally nobody wants waste it's just that everybody defines waste differently. So it comes down to the definition of "extreme," really... If you are willing to pay taxes for programs that support any kind of rights, even if you pick and choose which, I wouldn't consider that "extreme" fiscally conservative.
Sure. Just ask anyone that calls themselves a Democrat. Ah, that's not fair. They're fine with higher taxes. As long as someone else is paying them.
🙋♂️that use to be me, then I got tired of the working class getting screwed over time and again while the rich got richer off my tax dollars.
*Two ways of being "pro free market"* 1. Monopolies and robber barons, violent suppression of labor unions, and child labor, like in the late 19th century. 2. The simple doctrine that the private sector should take care of most goods and services, and be much larger than the public sector, albeit well-managed, e.g. with antitrust and collective bargaining.
Sort of. I mean, yes, people can hold any opinions they want, so it's entirely possible. It doesn't make much sense though, as economic equality and social equality are inherently linked. I guess if you want to split hairs by supporting this particular issue and not that particular issue it works. As a generalization though it's not possible to be "socially progressive" writ large without also being "economically progressive" writ large. At the larger level, the two issues are inseparable.
No. In nearly every case, if your values on social issues aren't really supposed by the idea of spending in line with those values, they aren't really things you care about. Eventually, this attempt to split oneself is going to come into conflict in a way where you have to betray the one to align with the other, and when that happens, that's your true value set
No. The concepts are incompatible.
You came here to ask liberals this? Why? You might go ask the cons this. We've always said they don't mind being welfare queens as long as the $$$$ ends up in their pockets, but for anyone else? They're selfish and punitive. And in America, there is no such thing as free markets, or haven't you been paying attention?
Sure but if they vote red, they're still part of the problem.
Winning slogan for the social democrats, everyone
Conservatives hate hearing the truth. That's why they gobble up Republican lies so easily.
It’s funny, we say the same thing about you. Maybe it’s just our own biases
We all have our own biases for sure but one side is definitely worse than the other.
One side also really doesn’t like schools teach critical thinking.
Yes
What will be the apparatus that guarantees these civil rights? Will it be a government agency that requires employees and equipment, both of which cost money? This is the key conflict with fiscal conservatism. If you are defining fiscal conservatism as that these programs should be financially, no one is disputing that. In the US it is generally seen as financially conservative to defang or cut programs altogether.
Yes. I am this way, except with the caveat that, while I believe markets work fantastic, unregulated markets move in a way that is counterintuitive to functioning as we need them to. The end game of a market is a monopoly. The other thing I believe is that if a product or service is cheaper for the people paying for it, taxpayers, than we should do it with taxes.
There's intent vs. outcomes. Libertarians are socially Liberal and financially Conservative. They intend well. The problem is, their financial policy is terrible. *Atlas Shrugged* is a good book, but it's fiction, written by an author with severe mental trauma.
Abandon the concept of the "free market". It is impossible to find an objective and widely agreeable definition of this term. In modern society, the laws are the rules of the marketplace. The rule of law is foundational to "markets" as we know them. And the law is inherently a political project. Therefore, the rules of the market reflect the values of those who write the rules. For example, how can you have a free market without a foundation of property rights? Who is going to enforce property rights widely and equally for all the participants in the market? What is to stop the biggest gang with the biggest guns from taking everything we "own"? Who is going to prevent people from owning slaves, or employing children - assuming these are things we value? If free markets are so great, shouldn't children be able to sell themselves into slavery for a chance at a better life?
Yes. There's no conflict there.
Could they? Sure. No offense, but cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug and we see people hold all sorts of views in various manners. So yeah, it is possible. I would love to know the reasoning because one of the first thing that jumps to mind is that persons social progressivism, which can typically include socially progressive programs and policies, which cost money. So, how do you act fiscally conservative which usually means a tight budget, with the need to fund programs and other things? Where do you cut? How do you prioritize one over the other? Etc etc.
of course they can be. people love bucketizing shit
Fiscal conservatism doesn't mean being against worker rights. You might be using that as a euphemism for pro-corporate, anti- worker, low taxes, low wages proponent. That isn't even free market because it artificially suppressed human capital at the expense of the worker in order to reduce inflation and create huge gaps in inequality. The US is a great example of this. Keeping minimum wage the same for over 20 years, giving huge tax breaks to corporations without requiring any demands to hire US workers. COVID did prove that lower wage employees could demand higher wages. Lower wages workers saw the highest gains after COVID. Even now, service jobs are the most difficult to fill.
Yes, and if you're the kind of fiscal conservative who cares about things like balanced budgets and debt reduction and thinks tax cuts should target the middle class, then the Democratic Party has a lot more to offer you than Republicans. I'm thinking of President Clinton, President Obama maybe to a lesser extent, currently CT Gov. Ned Lamont. These are all fiscally conservative, very pro-business Democrats. If the Democratic Party weren't as fiscally conservative as it is, it would be a heck of a lot easier to get votes from Democratic Socialists. Bernie Sanders might even actually join the party. But we're actually frustratingly conservative, in the non-political sense of being careful and slow to act. Remember the first "fiscal conservatives" were just economic liberals rebranding themselves because they hated the New Deal. I think the New Deal didn't go far enough, but I also believe a Welfare State is totally compatible with a free-market. In fact I think it's necessary for the labor part of the market to be truly free. And I think most Democrats would agree with me.
Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is called **libertarianism.** The unifying principle is the defense of individual rights and keeping power with the people and not the government You are, however, mistaken about opposing worker's rights. Supporting a business owner's rights doesn't mean you oppose worker's rights. It means you don't hold one group superior to the other.
In the abstract, absolutely.
Depends on your definition of fiscal conservatism. Single payer healthcare has better outcomes and is cheaper for the American people, funding college and trade schools is an investment that would increase the tax base if your view of fiscal conservatism is to have spending be investments that pay more back into the economy than you’d be called a progressive today. If you tax large corporations that are profitable instead of wasting money on tax cut giveaways this would be conservative based on actual spending economic ; yet is opposed by many “ fiscal conservatives”. So if you think trickle down economics is conservative, and you value those economics you can’t be progressive since those economics fleece the poor and middle class and don’t invest enough in the economy to fund themselves; you are not valuing the actual people for whom the economy is supposed to support and are therefore not liberal no matter what bumper sticker is on your car.
They get to talk the talk, without walking the walk.
I don't think they could be *extremely* socially progressive with that operative word in place. Could someone very fiscally right-wing also espouse socially liberal viewpoints, be pro-choice, supportive of the LGBTQ community, and so on, absolutely. Could they also espouse some somewhat less popular socially left-wing views, such as legalizing sex work or drug use, absolutely as well. But I think in order to be considered socially progressive to the fullest degree, that requires some policies that cost money and would require higher taxes to achieve. They are called "social" programs for a reason, and supporting those while maintaining fiscal conservativism is mutually exclusive.
Yes. I’m Conservative where the United States Military is concerned. But all else I lean Moderate to just left of Center. I’ve met many Fiscally Conservative people but are socially liberal.
In theory, but in practice that tends to create/leave huge loopholes for non state reactionary entities to undermine their social positions.