Not a progressive in the political sense but Amen to the second part. In fact you should want to cut it completely. 0 tax dollars should be going overseas, whether it is to Israel or the Middle East oil cartels, or for the CIA to run drugs through Mexico
"I'm Socially liberal/fiscally conservative" means: The government can't be in control of our society, but corporations can. I'm all for human rights, unless it conflicts with capitalism. The only principles I have are the ones that don't cost (me) anything.
LGBTQ, feminism, racism, abortion, weed related issues don't really have an upfront monetary cost. Healthcare, education, housing, etc, which are all things that are objectively needed to have a healthy advanced society we claim to have, do have costs. People with this mindset have decided no one's life is worth spending money
"I'm all for human rights unless it conflicts with capitalism." I think it's that sentiment which he's saying you can't coherently defend, like that's a pretty low bar for being "socially liberal"...
Uh, no. Corporations have to meet consumer preferences year after year. If they don't, then they lose market share. It is when corporations get public-private partnerships, subsidies, collectivized risk and regulations designed to create barriers to entry that the individual needs to worry. The New Deal was corporatism. The left doesn't understand that
Socially Liberal = personal freedoms and equality for people Fiscally Responsible = balanced budgets and protections for individuals over corporations.
kmoney890 libertarians have opposing views though at times. They believe in smaller govt and more freedoms. But private insurance can take options away from people as well as not be transparent. Govt run insurance is open to the public, cheaper and can be controlled through votes. Hmmm
2) stupid ... although I'm ngl people who identify as liberitarians often are the only other people on the political spectrum I can tolerate as a progressive. The only reason they are dumb is because they mean well but contradict their social intentions. It is super disheartening
David is wrong. "Socially liberal" doesnt mean "progressive". socially liberal means people should be free to do what they want. it has nothing to to with "fixing poverty". i am socially liberal and I dont give a f-ck about the poor or the environment.
No, that's a wrong interpretation. It means the following: I want people to do whatever they want, both socially and economically. They also believe that letting people act freely WILL solve the problem. They believe government intervention is actually making things worse, that it is limiting rights and limiting economic development. They see government as the source of the problems. If you want to give money to a special fund or pay more in taxes, they think you should be free to do so, as long as you don't force them to do the same. They're not forcing you to do anything you don't want, so why would you force them to do something they don't want? Freedom and individual responsibility are the ultimate values in their view and the free market will solve these social issues on its own. If you think a business is harming the environment, you and others should simply stop doing business with them. If everyone stops using cars, oil companies and the car industry will be have to adapt to protect the environment or go out of business.
@@octavianpopescu4776 so like anarchy? Also the free market was totally fine with child labor and six, twelve hour work days with no brake. When the people complained the free market was like "were a monopoly bitch do something about." So the people were like ok and they got the government to break up the monopolies, and impose worker regulations, and mandatory breaks. The free market is not free it only cares about the dollar. Who ever has the most dollars gets to call the shots, period and the only defense the people have against this is the ability to impose their will through the power of the government.
Just because you disagree doesn’t make it a fallacy. People who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, like myself, put individual rights at the forefront of their political value system. There are huge debates within libertarianism classical liberalism, and market liberalism about the role of environmental protection, the impact your individual choices have on other people. But the simple fact of wanting less government in every facet of society is much more consistent than both your worldview, and most conservative world views
Yeah exactly I’m an example of a consequentialist libertarian and i believe strongly in climate action. Just because we don’t government mandated segregation doesn’t mean we can’t also believe in supporting an already overgrown and ineffective welfare system. I would say that being a “lolbert” makes a lot more sense than keynesian liberalist in my eyes.
That title sounds like me. Except, I'm fiscal Conservative when it comes to the government spending. I'm against bailing out oligarchs and banks. Government spending needs to be smart. We need fair market, not free market. We need regulations to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Taxes should help everyone in one way or another. Fixing infrastructure, implementing green technology, ect. That's what I thought fiscal conservatism is supposed to be.
You sound downright communist saying that to a far-right winger...be careful, or you may become a libertarian socialist :D All kidding aside, fair comment tho
That's corporate-controlled government bailing out oligarchs and banks. The Founding Fathers were against corporations interfering with government. "The power of ALL Corporations ought to be limited... the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison did NOT say the power of Government ought to be limited. The reason Libertarians want "Deregulation" is because they don't want We The People to "Limit the power of ALL Corporations" like James Madison insisted! Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of corporations and allowed them to form only with strict limits... reclaimdemocracy[.]org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these: * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws. * Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. * Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose. * Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job. * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. Most of this vital history is unknown to citizens today, but it can provide critical understanding and tools for solving today's problems. Corporations are setting the agenda on issues in congress, courts and the media rather than "We the People" as our founding fathers intended. "We the People" can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money. .
Thunderbird Yes and hundreds of years ago a good portion of the founding fathers thought it was perfectly okay to have legal slavery in the US. Typing out this babble is pointless. I don’t care what people hundreds of years ago thought, especially due to the fact we are more educated than they are.
This was the most asinine commentary I’ve ever heard from David. First of all “liberal” and “conservative” are very vague terms so of course you can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, whatever that might mean. What people usually mean, however, is that they are socially tolerant and fiscally tight-walleted. Even if you don’t like the idea of tolerating somebody while having no interest in making any sacrifices to help them, there isn’t a logical contradiction there. Also, David not being able to think of a single social issue other than gay rights is pretty pathetic. That’s it? That’s all you can think of?
Thank you for posting this, people who post videos like this create and support intolerance of other political parties and I'm glad to see this comment.
The libertarians I know are not into social programs at all. They are into individual freedoms which would absolutely exclude using taxes for helping others. Fine, free markets, isolationist, smoke weed have guns and so on, but never have I heard socially liberal in the sense that they believe in helping the poor.
Darcie Kelly would libertarians support more expensive single private health insurance company that they would have zero input over its operation or a govt based cheaper option who could vote and have open transparency for?
Darcie Kelly the basic idea is that a free market system does the best job of allocating economic resource across the widest percentage of the population and it creates the greatest degree of mobility from one social wrung to the next. We want to help the poor, we just don’t believe that government is the best way to do it. We believe strongly in free trade and open borders for the movement of goods and labor. That’s the opposite of isolationism. Free trade and positive economic relationships is the best way to promote peace where trade restrictions and mercantilism have largely only produced war in the past. And yes, smoke weed, own guns and all the rest. Have sex with whom ever you want, marry who you want. The government never has the right to interfere with your right to defend yourself or interfere with your right to make your own choices about how you live your life. The founding principle is the non-aggression principle. So long as you are not initiating violence against someone else, the government has no right to regulate your behavior. Critical in that is relationship between that idea and climate change. Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily close the door to environmental regulation since dangerous commercial activities that are harmful to the environment can reasonably be considered to violate the non-aggression principle. We might still argue over the scope of regulation there and whether government is the best mechanism to regulate those activities but it doesn’t close the door to it.
@@joeloporto5210 The non-aggression principle utterly undermines libertarianism. Low wages are a form of aggression. Price-fixing is a form of aggression. Excessive rents are a form of aggression. Denying access to healthcare is a form of aggression. Land banking is a form of aggression. Avoiding taxes is a form of aggression. Over-working employees is a form of aggression. Polluting waterways is a form of aggression. False advertising is a form of aggression. Making and selling unsafe products is a form of aggression. Producing sub-standard food is a form of aggression. Mis-labelling products and/or their ingredients is a form of aggression. I could go on but I think I've made my point. The fact is, regulation is _necessary_ because for-profit companies will not take a non-aggression approach on their own - doing so reduces their bottom line. There already isn't _enough_ regulation - everything I listed still happens despite the legal frameworks already in place for public protection - and libertarians want _less_ regulation. It's an indefensible position.
Grimbeard no. Literally none of those things are a form of aggression. Me not having something and wanting or needing something from someone else can never be a form of aggression. That is just inequity. I take it that you are not a libertarian so you don’t have to buy the argument but the logic of the philosophy flows from that core principle. But just to reiterate, nothing you said is correct.
Grimbeard wait. Sorry, I missed some of your rant. If a company mislabeled something or produced unsafe food or dangerous products, that would be aggression. That aggression is recognized in the law. And you can sue those companies to oblivion. Private regulation is the plaintiffs bar. Which is a better regulator than government. When government regulates things, a bunch of lobbyists show up, write massive checks and certain businesses get the regulations the way they want them and other businesses get screwed. It’s the antithesis of capitalism and it’s abject corruption. That’s what happens when government regulates. Crony capitalism.
I like Pakman, but this video misrepresents the group he describes, because he has granted himself a monopoly on the word liberal and defined it as someone who necessarily supports heavy handed government involvement and taxation. Liberal simply means open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Classical Liberalism is the real and original liberalism and the Europeans are still using Liberalism as Classical Liberalism. Which supports small government and extended liberty both economically and socially(?). Those so called "Liberals" are social democrats and maybe even Democratic Socialists. They are not liberals. Supporting gay marriage isnt enough to be a Liberal minded person.
Felix Steiner basically I’m like the type of people u said (classical liberal) because I believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom in other words, both economically liberal and socially liberal. We support free market capitalism but also allow modern ideas like same-sex marriage, pro-choice abortion, freedom in religion, gun rights and all other freedoms. We are truly LIBERAL!
@@seanie002 If you don't want allow government to regulate such things, the second part is indeed true. Look at how Gary Johnson got booed at the Libertarian debates for saying that he supported the Civil Rights Act.
I think you said it best with: if your priority is "cut cut cut the deficit," well then you can't deal with the social issues you claim to be liberal on. It makes no sense in that respect, many of these internal inconsistencies that position can entail. The poll at 4:18 is really interesting too, that there are more people socially conservative and economically liberal than the converse
Why can we not "cut cut cut" the defense budget? We can set up a program to reduce spending over like a 10 year period as we ease out of some global military bases and cut contracts with big manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed. Meanwhile, we either ramp up social programs over that 10 year period or we keep the status quo and reduce taxation. We can get a lot done with like another 400 billion per year, and we would still be outspending the second most funded military by a factor of 3. Just doing that alone would pay for 20% of medicare for all, without raising any taxes at all, and we would still have the most expensive military in the world. Obviously for an ambitious program like that, we would need to raise taxes, but by cutting, we can lessen the burden.
The most humorous thing is that Federalists/Hamiltonians were the right-wing and the Anti-Federalists/Jeffersonians were left-wing despite that nowdays it would be the other way around or the two will be considered to be in the right
"Just leave me alone. Please take less of my money and don't tell me what I can put into my body or who I can sleep with." How does that not make sense?
I guess the part where you vote Republican because they're more "fiscally conservative" and they turn around, take more of your money, tell you what you can put into your body and dictate who you can sleep with.
The funny thing is "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" would actually be an apt description of medicare for all (more social freedom and yet at a lower cost... and yet ironically those are a lot of the people that would be against it. technically fiscally conservative just means making the least expensive choice... for example, in a economic system where pollution is taxed/fined appropriately its more fiscally conservative to embrace green tech (even at a higher upfront cost) than to have to be responsible for the long term and short term costs of coal/oil. so the term "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" actually DOES make sense the problem is society itself doesn't make sense; society itself is illogical and self destructive.
No it wouldn't lmao. Bernie makes private insurance illegal and covers several other healthcare things (such as vision, dental, and prescriptions) that other countries with socialized healthcare don't cover. His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars. His plan alone over 10 years will cost just as much, if not more, as the total US government's entire budget over 10 years (assuming the government doesn't increase it or decrease it).
@@Lycaon1765 1) private insurance can still cover anything bernie's medicare plan doesn't IE cosmetic surgery and theoretically non cosmetic augmentation for example when implantable technology becomes commercial... so no it doesn't make it illegally they just can't compete.. and theoretically they couldn't financially compete anyways so that's a moot point. 2) yes, his plan will just tens of trillions... NEW FLASH the current system ALREADY cost more... 2-5 trillion more over 10 years to be exact. and no, it would be about 2.5 years worth of the economy over 10 years... and again the current system already cost more. 3) many country already do this to a slightly lesser degree, bernie's plan pretty much covers EVERYTHING that could be needed, which is what people should expect. 4) your healthcare system sucks, and obamacare (ACA) was nothing more than a bandaid for healthcare system, even obama originally ran on single payer, obamacare (ACA) was the compromise, a republican plan(romneycare), that even republicans refused to support.
@@Lycaon1765 "His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars." and even according to conservative think tanks it is cheaper than what we have currently. Fail argument, go sit in the corner. Don't forget your donkey hat son.
I strongly disagree, it's not a oxymoron being fiscally conservative and socially liberal because embraces perfect individualism and self ownership, wake up people politics are NOT white and black you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and even people can be socially conservative BUT leftist in economy.
It is a bit of generalization. What has happened is libertarians have become the dominant voice for Jeffersonian Republicanism. However Contemporary Libertarianism is highly influenced by Hayek, Mises, and Ayn Rand who recommend a violation of Jeffersonian Republicanism. Conservatives should remember that it was Jefferson who wrote the outlines for not only publicly funded primary school education but for publicly funded University education! The fact that there is a conservative backlash against Sanders plan for free college education violates Jefferson's own ideas and principles and proposals. What was Jefferson's reasoning? That Universal access to Education is an institution that strengthens democracy so therefore it should be considered an appropriate interpretation of the general welfare clause. You can make the same Jeffersonian argument for Medicare4All. To be purely Jeffersonian it might be interpreted as Medicaid4all because it strengthens states rights over federal government. But Jefferson was all for federal spending for the sake of the general welfare. What he did during his presidency was created an interstate highway system with federal funding as well. The Republicans have been completely Hijacked by shallow neoliberal apologists for decades.
Disagree! Oil &gas is propped up today with subsidies. Getting rid of them will create a more level playing field. Green innovation will win if less money went to bad actors. We may have even had a more green environment ages ago.
I don't agree that socially liberal and fiscally conservative policies are necessarily in contradiction. You state the position of fiscal conservatives as they are now, with a bias against environmental policies. But this is a very short term position. In the longer term it makes far, far more sense fiscally to enact socially liberal and environmentally responsible policies. With rising sea levels and the damage to the environment, longer term liberal environmental policies make huge sense fiscally. In addition there is no necessary disjunction between fiscal conservativism and social liberalism and vice versa. The two don't necessarily have the same goals, results or motivation. It's unfortunately more complex than that.
I agree that the contradiction disappears if you define "Fiscally Conservative" as "I'm for efficient, low-waste, low-corruption government and $0 deficits and debts." Sounds great. But, often the path to get there requires Big Regulation, Big Social Programs and Big Infrastructure spending to stimulate confidence and growth. Also, if you run into a "Fiscal Conservative", ask them how much they want to cut Defense. If they hesitate to cut it by at least 50%, they don't get to wear the "Fiscal" fig leaf to cover their Conservatism anymore.
@@jones1618 I agree. A lot of so called fiscal conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are merely right wing hawks who cherry pick their targets and use the language of fiscal conservatism to suggest not spending money on things they don't ideologically agree with.
Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative really is just taking things case by case. We pay already pay taxes. Whether you vote blue or red you always seem to get a raise in taxes. Those taxes might as well go to things we want them to go to. Roads, Schools, Welfare programs(for those who really need them) and our military. Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to BS especially with other countries. As for social liberty, let people do as they wish. As long as it doesn’t affect your personal life.
You can believe in climate change and gay rights without wanting the government sticking their hands into every aspect of it. More government is not the solution to all problems. In fact it's the cause of most problems.
A few things to say here. Entrepreneurs who start green companies do not because there are tax incentives. They start them because climate change had pushed them toward altruism. In addition, large corporations and wealthy individuals have increased income inequality due to the tax subsidies that come with these climate change initiatives. A carbon tax would incentivize companies to move toward greener solutions for their energy needs, but giving out government handouts in support of it is not a proper use of funds. We are facing a debt crisis that is larger than climate change and we cannot fight climate change without a private sector. A lot of millennials are making purchasing and investing decisions based on their climate beliefs, this is without government intervention.
The "fiscally conservative" talking point often only applies to welfare spending, anyway. It usually flies out the window the moment you talk about military spending or corporatism (or corporate socialism). That's why we have tasty nuggets like the fact that there are thousands of tanks sitting around in the Nevada desert and other places, being completely useless... because the fiscally conservatives in Congress couldn't bring themselves to cut military spending - despite the Pentagon itself saying it doesn't want any more tanks. What a waste of resources.
@@seanie002 so what if he is? I've yet to see any action libertarians take to use our tax dollars for the community. Though they are a supporter of corporate welfare and profits over people
I disagree with your view. A person can coherently support both environmental regulations and still oppose deficit spending.Those are two separate things that aren't necessarily related. All you've done is attribute specific views to the label "fiscal conservative" which make it incompatible with social liberalism. I think that's playing with definitions more than it's a real argument. If I support: - the GND - corporate regulations that protect workers, human rights and the environment - the right of every person to marry whomever they choose - equal opportunities in education - slashing of military spending to 10% of what it is now. - massively raising taxes on wealth (not income) - making deficit spending illegal by law (with some flexibility for cyclical economies and emergencies) Then what am I? Does that not count as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
REAL Fiscal Conservatism would be FOR environmental regulation because such policies SAVE MONEY in the LONG RUN by avoiding the massive costs of EXTERNALITIES such as super fund cleanups, pollution related health consequences, etc.
I have friends who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They don’t want want the government involved but was personally very generous to organizations. They feel they want to know where their money is going.
Exactly! As someone who used to claim to be socially liberal/fiscally conservative I learned over time that the solutions to the problems I genuinely cared about required regulation and tax dollars. I now call myself a progressive.
@J sounds like your definition of libertarian must bee off a bit. The right to do what you want while not infringing on another’s rights is all it is in case your wondering...
To be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is not contradictory. It means to be someone who believes that free market capitalism yeilds the best results for all of society while rejecting a traditional conservative conformist lifestyle. If you believe that government programs are the only way to solve social problems, you are fiscally liberal. All David is doing here is conflating social and fiscal positions into the same thing so that he can call it contradictory to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I love how he describes them as libertarians even though conservativism is literally authoritarian while libertarianism is literally libertarian. This is a terrible representation.
It's not a contradiction. Libertarians value freedom over regulations and goverment interference. You can argue that regulations can help achieve the means that Libertarians care about socially but they simply care about ecomonic freedoms more.
Without regulations peoples freedoms and their ability to live a long, healthy, happy life are going to be interfered with. Big business and the banks will do what they want and tyrannise us as they wish. They could dump crap in our rivers, pay people a pittance, abolish breaks in the work place, fire people for no reason, put whatever junk they like in our food, mislabel that food if they felt like it, and no one could stop them. In a capitalist society regulations are necessary.
I always took "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" to mean someone who cares about social injustices, but also wants to be careful against extravagant, unnecessary excess spending. As somebody who's worked government contracts there is a LOT of waste, I mean literal decades of trillions of dollars down the toilet gone for nothing, people who work in government get awful complacent with a constant drip feed of tax money payrolling them (I should know, I worked with a lot of them). A person could for example support climate change regulations through increased tax penalties on high emission industries, which satisfies both socially liberal and fiscally conservative policy (addresses climate change while increasing government funding), that's at least how I understood it.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. The key to success for this country is to have progressive type policies executed in a conservative manner. The trick is to be ready to allow folks to be left behind if they chose not to participate in the free market of goods, ideas and services. While, at the same time, offering the basic tools citizens need to thrive, a useful education and a very basic level of safety nets.
"What part of Libertarianism do you not like, the part where you have to make decisions for your own life, or the part where you don't get to make decisions about my life."
I gotta disagree. There are ways to deal with huge problems like climate change, poor public education, and income inequality. A mixed economy which implores responsible capitalist and responsible socialist policies doesn't necessarily require constant government intervention. Command and control doesn't work, because firms find a way around. Letting markets correct themselves is a better way, it's just that we see too much 'crony capitalism' that people now can't distinguish it from true capitalism.
All economies are mixed, except the U.S. doesn't have responsible capitalist policies and is lacking in responsible socialist policies. Sometimes we need a government to force a change that's financially and morally right - such as the Civil Rights Act.
@@50jakecs good points, I wish there was a way to have little more socialism without less capitalism. I fear we may swing the other way and use socialist policies irresponsibly too. One thing is for sure, we see far too many externalities left uncorrected or fixed cheaply and not thoroughly (Housing crisis, etc.)
It makes plenty of sense. I don't want the government to interfere with our liberties and I want them to make smart financial decisions, not just spend at the public's whim because it "feels right". I don't want to be like France and have 42 overly generous pensions systems just because people want really good benefits. I don't want the government to be spending so much in unnecessary places with unneeded programs. The government needs to try to make good economic decisions so that everyone can benefit from the strengthened economy. Spending money =/= unequivocal good for the unfortunate.
I pointed out to my brother in law that lake County Illinois voted for trump and he was claiming the same argument. They like to claim liberalism but reap the benefits of conservative fiscal policies.
I’m not sure I agree. Why can’t people be socially liberal about certain things and fiscally conservative about certain things. Why does it have to be so black and white? People are complicated.
Hey David, I think the big problem with, "politics," is that we never address the layers of government, we just shoehorn everything into one big, "government," topic. We have federal, state, and local governments in the United States. My take on these layers is that the further the representation is from my living room, the less power they should have over me. I think that the federal government should be a protector/enforcer of constitutional rights and economic regulations. It should provide oversight over state governments. It should also be the main defense against foreign entities. States should be where the social programs happen, again, with federal oversight to make sure that people aren't getting robbed by the state governments. We've seen examples of state social programs being far superior to federal or even free market solutions. The great thing is that we can run 50 different experiments to determine which particular systems work best, then shift over to using those systems. With one big federal system, we'll pretty much be stuck with whatever train wreck the corrupt federal politicians and their lobbyists put together. Which brings me to my main issue with federal government... corruption. Everything that the federal government touches gets corrupted. There's simply too much money at stake, and little/no oversight. The more power we give to the federal government to allocate money, the more lobbyists show up to vie for that money. Why would anyone want more federal social programs after they've seen what the current government has done with social security and healthcare? You can be economically conservative and understand that our current implementation of capitalism is broken. Most importantly, the idea of the government picking winners and losers is just insanity. Subsidies and bailouts go against economic conservatism, and directly lead to corruption. Republicans might be for such things, but true economic conservatives are not. If you want a succinct example of where I believe that social liberalism and economic conservatism can go hand in hand, then how about this... If you want to fix our current economic system, the first thing to do would be to enact an economic, "prime directive," law. US businesses can only do business with other countries that have rights/laws similar to our own. That would even the global playing field and do away with a lot of the foreign exploitation that happens at the hands of American corporations. It would put an end to cheap foreign labor and it would put an end to supporting foreign dictators in order to exploit their resources. China and Saudi Arabia would have to find someone else to prop up their evil regimes. Regarding climate change, I'm tired of talking about it. Regardless of my opinion on the subject, I'm down with eliminating fossil fuel consumption, and with being stewards of the environment. I think any/all environmental protection at the federal level should be done strictly through regulation/law, and not through subsidies, taxes, tax credits, etc. Again, money is the tool of corruption. Understand that these are only tidbits of my own social liberal/fiscal conservative ideas. As with other political views, there's a whole package that fits together, with way too much depth to cover in a response to a video. Also, like all political views, it's not perfect.
I support decentralization. That means a bigger state and local government and small federal government. I think that more issues should be addressed and solve by their respective state or local governments as opposed to federal level.
Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you want small government, just efficient government. Balance a budget, dont overspend (aka steal from future generations).
Deficits are unsustainable, destroying the environment is unsustainable. Quite simply resource depletion in a unsustainable fashion is no good for anybody.
I'm a progressive that doesn't think free college is the best use of resources. But I think single payer healthcare does since it will reduce total costs. Does that make me fiscally conservative?
Libertarians define tyranny only as coming from government, and freedom as just “freedom from government”. So if government reins in tyranny from corporations, then that itself is tyranny
I disagree. Most regulations and taxes don't actually achieve their intended purpose or are just poorly managed, you can be someone that is socially liberal who wants taxes that lower inequality, help the environment, but still be for a largely free market approach. You're being to general in your understanding of what this kind of person is about.
Libertarian rebuttals incoming... They are going to say "You want the government to use force, it is on you to justify that. I don't think that is ever justified."
The correct response to that is "without the state you hand the use of force over to whoever has the most power and money. Would you rather have an elected official who is accountable to his/her voters and can be removed in charge, or the head of GlaxoSmithKlein?"
@@theatheistpaladin If they say they truly are morons. You cannot simply take your money elsewhere, if they're pouring chemicals into the local rivers, or pumping harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, which is what happens when corporations are not held in check by regulations.
@@ultrademigod With stupid people, you cannot make them realize they are stupid. The whole reason for sticking with simplistic thinking is so that you don't have to deal with nuance. The response will either be sue or tough shit.
I’m socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Homelessness is easy, just round them up and send them to labor colony/re-education. Then provide resources to get on their feet, or else they’ll return to the camp.
Put concisely, if you aren't going to structure an economy to support social liberalism, your feelings of support towards social liberalism effectively do not matter. It's like saying "I support X but won't take steps to accomplish X."
You’re right. It is simplistic to call someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative a right winger that doesn’t hate gay people. The proper definition is a right winger that doesn’t hate gay people and wants to smoke weed.
I'm a Canadian and i consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are so much farther ahead and have won so many of the battles progressive Americans are fighting for now, universal health care, maternity leave, cheaper prescription drugs, legalized marijuana, access to abortion, cheaper post secondary education and on and on and on. These things are baked into the cake for Canadians and we would lose our shit if these things were clawed back. Canada has also proven you can have these types of programs and have balanced budgets and even surpluses. But over the past 4 years of liberal government we have added something like over 100 billion dollars to our debt and being a Canadian fiscal conservative i don't think its a very good idea to be adding up that type of crushing debt for future generations to pay off with either higher taxes or severe budget cuts.
I always thought that I was Socially liberal and financially conservative until I took a test and found out my views sit in the lower left of the political compass.
When I used to be a trumpist i thought i was authright but found out I was authleft when i took the test. Three years later and I sit comfortably in the bottom right quadrant. It’s more coherent than Pakman makes it seem.
Small government does not equate to anarchy. We libertarians are not anarchists. We dont want no government and therefore no regulations. We just look for the answer that requires the least ammount of government interference. Unlike our rivals who seem to use it as the answer to every ill humanity faces. Nothing contradictory here. Keep your own house clean before throwing those rocks over here David.
I used to actually identify as socially liberal/fiscally conservative. Until I realised the 2 just dont coexist together, no matter how much i want them to. If I want the safety nets in place, its going to cost money. And I became OK with that, because in the grand scheme of things, its just money.
You assume that government subsidies, welfare programs, etc are good for social rights. Fiscal conservatism applies to the economics. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Disagree David. Fiscal conservatives like me, want to see balanced budgets. I want to see scrutiny on spending like the military industrial complex. Regarding regulations I want to see sensible regulations but not to the point of hindering the economy.
I once honestly believed I leaned libertarian. But then I realized I'm actually just technocratic and libertarians are insanely ideological. As an example, I think the government should run public safety, healthcare and infrastructure. Not because I like big government, but because I want the most efficient method to provide public goods. I am "fiscally conservative" in the sense that I don't want to waste money on inefficient ideological approaches.
There is zero evidence that those are run more efficiently by government. In fact one could say there is plenty of evidence to say they are the most inefficient.
He is assuming that Fiscally Conservative is the worst of the greed fueled corporate monsters but business can be good if it provides a good product at a fair price, pays a fair wage, pays their taxes, and does not harm the environment. Business if done ethically and responsibility is what fuels a good community.
I disagree with that stance. I don’t think you need regulation to address poor populations. That’s a culture issue. I can feel for the poor and not want to give half my earnings away to what is largely caused by poor decision making. Same with the environment. Even with all the hysteria around Trump gutting the EPA and leaving the Paris Climate Accord, the US leads the world in lowering emissions. On health care, I prefer to have full control of what I spend my money on. I don’t agree that everyone should be ok with giving up a significant chunk of their pay so that other people can have free healthcare. There’s an argument to be made that deregulation of the health care industry and better training early on in life would do more to fix health care than anything the government could come up with. On top of that, the government spends money like its water with next to no real common sense or accountability. Its size means that everything it has its hands on is plagued by inefficiency. The only thing the government is good at is meddling in foreign affairs. Otherwise, there isn’t one branch, or government organization that does anything well. I don’t want a DMV experience when I go to a doctor.
Your argument presumes that more government is the ONLY way to help the poor or fix the environment. This is wrong. The poor can be helped through private charities and the environment can be improved through technological innovations that arise out of free markets. For example: if someone were to invent a working fission reactor, they'd become massively wealthy and help the environment greatly.
And even your characterization of “gay people” seems to imply you may have the same biases that a lot of these sorts of libertarians have about gays, which is to forget that they are not the well-to-do monolithic image created by the media (to push gay marriage as a distraction to the economic-inequality-intensifying time of the Obama era) but rather are often in need of government assistance in order to survive in a relatively socially conservative world that we live in.
Fiscal conservativism is kind of a joke. Because those people don't whine about rampant military spending. I don't want to tax the middle class much, but the rich can pay in a lot more than they are.
I think this really boils down to human nature. People want to do what they want to do and have no responsibilities to the outcomes. That might have worked for a while but with overpopulation and the explosion of the industrial age and capitalism, regulations are absolutely mandatory to keep this society from killing itself.
I still want an answer from “fiscal conservatives” about why they don’t want Medicare for All even though it would reduce the debt and deficit and give people more money in their pockets to grow the economy. The same for Climate Change isn’t it fiscally responsible to have a diverse portfolio.
I have an example . House painter.. "refinishes houses" not just brushing paint on but removing toxic dried paint too. This is a business, and with a business comes cost..... when government makes you pay more to do that job ,because of regulations on toxicity limitations, becomes resentment. pretty sure this the problem. If that painter was payed instead of taxed/regulated in permits. Libertarianism may not have ever existed.
People who consider themselves “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” want to be both of those things because they think they should be. They want to be socially liberal because they want to be a “good guy,” and they’re fiscally conservative because they somehow think that’s the “common sense” position to have.
I think it means something like: "My personal values are liberal but I believe the government should be handled in a conservative way" or something like that. It's a really weird position to have, I agree and probably means that these people are apolitical, liberal and don't want to think about it enough to make them realize that they've been rooting for the wrong side all along.
I used to identify as a libertarian, saying the exact mantra of "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", although I probably am just incorrectly identifying myself. Yes, regulation is required to keep monopolies in check, to keep the upholding of the rights of the people, and to keep laws enforced. However, I am against aggressive regulation and red tape that create inefficiencies, like, it has to be necessary for the reasons I mentioned, else it is bad. Yes, I agree that we can "cut, cut, cut" in order to pay for social programs while also not increasing or even reducing taxation, because we can "cut, cut, cut" a huge amount of revenue from the defense budget over time if we decide we want to do it, like a few hundred billion per year. And yes, unless you are infringing on the rights of others, I think you should basically be able to do anything.
If you are fiscally conservative, then you have a home in the democratic party. The numbers don't lie. over the last quarter century, the administrations which have reduced the deficit, have all been democrats, while every republican administration has exploded the deficit.... But that's the rub. The people who pretend to be "fiscally conservative", and let's face it- it's all theatrics, they don't really care about spending. It's ALL about what is being bought. And libertarians tend to want the same things as republicans, by and large.
But cutting taxes means lower revenue, meaning its more difficult to be fiscally conservative. Conservatives will never admit that trickle-down economics is a scam.
Regulations have to do with spending. Enforcing a regulation requires spending money. A regulation that creates a program (such as the Social Security system) costs money. Regulations are also referred to as laws.
My main issue is that, to me, fiscal conservatives should be people who want to pay for the important stuff, and not for frivolous stuff while making sure they have enough income to cover expenses. You know, actual fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the political term fiscal conservative has come to mean slash spending, but not raise revenue (taxes). In fact they tend to want to cut revenue. That's different than actual fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the term fiscal conservative does not mean fiscal responsibility as it should. Not at all.
Fiscally conservative to me means embrace responsible climate change regulation as a way to save huge amounts of money in the Long Run not the next quarter it’s a balance just like freedom Social libertarian not social anarchist
Essentially...I'm socially liberal, but am against any regulation that may balance or check social inequalities! Obviously some are principled and get bashed by conservatives, like Tomi Lahren (out of all people) coming out as pro-choice
Adolf loved his dogs and built great roads. Being able to do good and deciding not to is what makes a real monster. Ms Lahren is pro choice because that affects her somehow. So she has an interest in it. She gets no cookie for that.
I'm a progressive who's fiscally conservative. I want to cut the military budget in half!
Not a progressive in the political sense but Amen to the second part. In fact you should want to cut it completely. 0 tax dollars should be going overseas, whether it is to Israel or the Middle East oil cartels, or for the CIA to run drugs through Mexico
@@stopplayingthegame I may be wrong but I think it was a play on words
Any cuts for the military should not effect stuff like treatment for ptsd and all the other awful horrors of war. There's plenty to cut elsewhere.
@@Islandswamp Unfortunately that will be what gets cut first; we vets don't make major campaign bribes to politicians like the defense contractors do.
Yeah, I'm fiscally conservative because I see clean air and water as a valuable resource
"I'm Socially liberal/fiscally conservative" means:
The government can't be in control of our society, but corporations can.
I'm all for human rights, unless it conflicts with capitalism.
The only principles I have are the ones that don't cost (me) anything.
LGBTQ, feminism, racism, abortion, weed related issues don't really have an upfront monetary cost.
Healthcare, education, housing, etc, which are all things that are objectively needed to have a healthy advanced society we claim to have, do have costs. People with this mindset have decided no one's life is worth spending money
"I'm all for human rights unless it conflicts with capitalism." I think it's that sentiment which he's saying you can't coherently defend, like that's a pretty low bar for being "socially liberal"...
"the only principles I have are those that don't cost me nothing"
Spot on!
Edit: pp
Uh, no. Corporations have to meet consumer preferences year after year. If they don't, then they lose market share.
It is when corporations get public-private partnerships, subsidies, collectivized risk and regulations designed to create barriers to entry that the individual needs to worry.
The New Deal was corporatism. The left doesn't understand that
@@josephpeeler5434 corporations and subsidies never mix :/
Socially Liberal = personal freedoms and equality for people
Fiscally Responsible = balanced budgets and protections for individuals over corporations.
Finally, someone making sense in the comments.
On paper that’s what that could mean. Libertarians seem to disagree however
kmoney890 libertarians have opposing views though at times. They believe in smaller govt and more freedoms. But private insurance can take options away from people as well as not be transparent. Govt run insurance is open to the public, cheaper and can be controlled through votes. Hmmm
Balanced budget is a vague, nonsensical term.
Frank F Fletcher so we should print more money than we take in leading to inflation and less buying power?
It does make sense if you fit any of these criteria:
1) Rich
Joshua Salem 2) Very rich
Rich person: "I feel bad for the poor." Also Rich Person: Deposits $1 billion into his/her bank account instead of donating to help poor.
2) stupid
... although I'm ngl people who identify as liberitarians often are the only other people on the political spectrum I can tolerate as a progressive. The only reason they are dumb is because they mean well but contradict their social intentions.
It is super disheartening
Please give to Bernie Sanders.
Lolz
Did you get Danny DeVito too? :P
Already did yesterday.
I have, I will .
We have been donating to Bernie's campaign every month for many months, and will continue to do so. Money well spent.
“I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.”
Translation: I’m all for human rights just so long as they don’t inconvenience wealthy people.
Woke capitalism in a nutshell.
David is wrong. "Socially liberal" doesnt mean "progressive". socially liberal means people should be free to do what they want. it has nothing to to with "fixing poverty". i am socially liberal and I dont give a f-ck about the poor or the environment.
No, that's a wrong interpretation. It means the following: I want people to do whatever they want, both socially and economically. They also believe that letting people act freely WILL solve the problem. They believe government intervention is actually making things worse, that it is limiting rights and limiting economic development. They see government as the source of the problems. If you want to give money to a special fund or pay more in taxes, they think you should be free to do so, as long as you don't force them to do the same. They're not forcing you to do anything you don't want, so why would you force them to do something they don't want? Freedom and individual responsibility are the ultimate values in their view and the free market will solve these social issues on its own. If you think a business is harming the environment, you and others should simply stop doing business with them. If everyone stops using cars, oil companies and the car industry will be have to adapt to protect the environment or go out of business.
@@octavianpopescu4776 so like anarchy? Also the free market was totally fine with child labor and six, twelve hour work days with no brake. When the people complained the free market was like "were a monopoly bitch do something about." So the people were like ok and they got the government to break up the monopolies, and impose worker regulations, and mandatory breaks. The free market is not free it only cares about the dollar. Who ever has the most dollars gets to call the shots, period and the only defense the people have against this is the ability to impose their will through the power of the government.
@@octavianpopescu4776 Outstanding! Very concise summation.
Just because you disagree doesn’t make it a fallacy. People who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, like myself, put individual rights at the forefront of their political value system. There are huge debates within libertarianism classical liberalism, and market liberalism about the role of environmental protection, the impact your individual choices have on other people. But the simple fact of wanting less government in every facet of society is much more consistent than both your worldview, and most conservative world views
Yeah exactly
I’m an example of a consequentialist libertarian and i believe strongly in climate action. Just because we don’t government mandated segregation doesn’t mean we can’t also believe in supporting an already overgrown and ineffective welfare system. I would say that being a “lolbert” makes a lot more sense than keynesian liberalist in my eyes.
That title sounds like me. Except, I'm fiscal Conservative when it comes to the government spending. I'm against bailing out oligarchs and banks. Government spending needs to be smart. We need fair market, not free market. We need regulations to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Taxes should help everyone in one way or another. Fixing infrastructure, implementing green technology, ect. That's what I thought fiscal conservatism is supposed to be.
You sound downright communist saying that to a far-right winger...be careful, or you may become a libertarian socialist :D
All kidding aside, fair comment tho
Seiferboy Gaming
I really don’t see how we couldn’t bail out the banks and other large companies years ago
That's corporate-controlled government bailing out oligarchs and banks. The Founding Fathers were against corporations interfering with government. "The power of ALL Corporations ought to be limited... the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison did NOT say the power of Government ought to be limited. The reason Libertarians want "Deregulation" is because they don't want We The People to "Limit the power of ALL Corporations" like James Madison insisted!
Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of corporations and allowed them to form only with strict limits... reclaimdemocracy[.]org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits.
Most of this vital history is unknown to citizens today, but it can provide critical understanding and tools for solving today's problems. Corporations are setting the agenda on issues in congress, courts and the media rather than "We the People" as our founding fathers intended. "We the People" can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.
.
Thunderbird
Yes and hundreds of years ago a good portion of the founding fathers thought it was perfectly okay to have legal slavery in the US.
Typing out this babble is pointless. I don’t care what people hundreds of years ago thought, especially due to the fact we are more educated than they are.
A fair market is a free market.
This was the most asinine commentary I’ve ever heard from David.
First of all “liberal” and “conservative” are very vague terms so of course you can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, whatever that might mean. What people usually mean, however, is that they are socially tolerant and fiscally tight-walleted. Even if you don’t like the idea of tolerating somebody while having no interest in making any sacrifices to help them, there isn’t a logical contradiction there.
Also, David not being able to think of a single social issue other than gay rights is pretty pathetic. That’s it? That’s all you can think of?
Thank you for posting this, people who post videos like this create and support intolerance of other political parties and I'm glad to see this comment.
The libertarians I know are not into social programs at all. They are into individual freedoms which would absolutely exclude using taxes for helping others. Fine, free markets, isolationist, smoke weed have guns and so on, but never have I heard socially liberal in the sense that they believe in helping the poor.
Darcie Kelly would libertarians support more expensive single private health insurance company that they would have zero input over its operation or a govt based cheaper option who could vote and have open transparency for?
Darcie Kelly the basic idea is that a free market system does the best job of allocating economic resource across the widest percentage of the population and it creates the greatest degree of mobility from one social wrung to the next. We want to help the poor, we just don’t believe that government is the best way to do it. We believe strongly in free trade and open borders for the movement of goods and labor. That’s the opposite of isolationism. Free trade and positive economic relationships is the best way to promote peace where trade restrictions and mercantilism have largely only produced war in the past. And yes, smoke weed, own guns and all the rest. Have sex with whom ever you want, marry who you want. The government never has the right to interfere with your right to defend yourself or interfere with your right to make your own choices about how you live your life. The founding principle is the non-aggression principle. So long as you are not initiating violence against someone else, the government has no right to regulate your behavior. Critical in that is relationship between that idea and climate change. Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily close the door to environmental regulation since dangerous commercial activities that are harmful to the environment can reasonably be considered to violate the non-aggression principle. We might still argue over the scope of regulation there and whether government is the best mechanism to regulate those activities but it doesn’t close the door to it.
@@joeloporto5210 The non-aggression principle utterly undermines libertarianism.
Low wages are a form of aggression. Price-fixing is a form of aggression. Excessive rents are a form of aggression. Denying access to healthcare is a form of aggression. Land banking is a form of aggression. Avoiding taxes is a form of aggression. Over-working employees is a form of aggression. Polluting waterways is a form of aggression. False advertising is a form of aggression. Making and selling unsafe products is a form of aggression. Producing sub-standard food is a form of aggression. Mis-labelling products and/or their ingredients is a form of aggression.
I could go on but I think I've made my point. The fact is, regulation is _necessary_ because for-profit companies will not take a non-aggression approach on their own - doing so reduces their bottom line. There already isn't _enough_ regulation - everything I listed still happens despite the legal frameworks already in place for public protection - and libertarians want _less_ regulation. It's an indefensible position.
Grimbeard no. Literally none of those things are a form of aggression. Me not having something and wanting or needing something from someone else can never be a form of aggression. That is just inequity. I take it that you are not a libertarian so you don’t have to buy the argument but the logic of the philosophy flows from that core principle. But just to reiterate, nothing you said is correct.
Grimbeard wait. Sorry, I missed some of your rant. If a company mislabeled something or produced unsafe food or dangerous products, that would be aggression. That aggression is recognized in the law. And you can sue those companies to oblivion. Private regulation is the plaintiffs bar. Which is a better regulator than government. When government regulates things, a bunch of lobbyists show up, write massive checks and certain businesses get the regulations the way they want them and other businesses get screwed. It’s the antithesis of capitalism and it’s abject corruption. That’s what happens when government regulates. Crony capitalism.
I like Pakman, but this video misrepresents the group he describes, because he has granted himself a monopoly on the word liberal and defined it as someone who necessarily supports heavy handed government involvement and taxation. Liberal simply means open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Classical Liberalism is the real and original liberalism and the Europeans are still using Liberalism as Classical Liberalism. Which supports small government and extended liberty both economically and socially(?). Those so called "Liberals" are social democrats and maybe even Democratic Socialists. They are not liberals. Supporting gay marriage isnt enough to be a Liberal minded person.
Felix Steiner basically I’m like the type of people u said (classical liberal) because I believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom in other words, both economically liberal and socially liberal. We support free market capitalism but also allow modern ideas like same-sex marriage, pro-choice abortion, freedom in religion, gun rights and all other freedoms. We are truly LIBERAL!
@@gytan2221 Hell yeah that's right where I am.
The libertarian position: "I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I'm also in favor of legalizing discrimination against those who are gay."
Heinz Guderian first part correct, second part incorrect. But you already knew that.
@@seanie002 "laize fair" yeah, they do indeed
M A well said sir. No, you're not crazy.
@M A no libertarians could care Jack all about the environment.
@@seanie002 If you don't want allow government to regulate such things, the second part is indeed true. Look at how Gary Johnson got booed at the Libertarian debates for saying that he supported the Civil Rights Act.
I think you said it best with: if your priority is "cut cut cut the deficit," well then you can't deal with the social issues you claim to be liberal on. It makes no sense in that respect, many of these internal inconsistencies that position can entail. The poll at 4:18 is really interesting too, that there are more people socially conservative and economically liberal than the converse
We could cut taxes and still fund many of the programs that currently exist. The problem is mismanagement of funding, not lack of funding.
@@ryanfoltz1276 The major mismanagement of taxation in the USA is the colossal military budget.
Why can we not "cut cut cut" the defense budget? We can set up a program to reduce spending over like a 10 year period as we ease out of some global military bases and cut contracts with big manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed. Meanwhile, we either ramp up social programs over that 10 year period or we keep the status quo and reduce taxation. We can get a lot done with like another 400 billion per year, and we would still be outspending the second most funded military by a factor of 3. Just doing that alone would pay for 20% of medicare for all, without raising any taxes at all, and we would still have the most expensive military in the world. Obviously for an ambitious program like that, we would need to raise taxes, but by cutting, we can lessen the burden.
@@_badmadsadlad Taxes don't fund Federal govt spending. The US can afford larger deficits and actually has alot more fiscal space to spend.
@@ryanfoltz1276 you’re right that there is mismanagement with the current funding, but there’s also terrible policy on how we’re funded.
Im socially conservative but fiscally & environmentally very liberal, what does that make me? What’s the opposite of libertarianism?
I'm personally more the opposite. I'm socially conservative & fiscally liberal.
The most humorous thing is that Federalists/Hamiltonians were the right-wing and the Anti-Federalists/Jeffersonians were left-wing despite that nowdays it would be the other way around or the two will be considered to be in the right
@@Antonio-ej8wp True. Also, I feel like I’ve seen you from somewhere... are you familiar with PCB?
It’s a cop out for those who don’t want to admit to being conservatives.
"Just leave me alone. Please take less of my money and don't tell me what I can put into my body or who I can sleep with." How does that not make sense?
That makes perfect sense, this was a total strawman
I guess the part where you vote Republican because they're more "fiscally conservative" and they turn around, take more of your money, tell you what you can put into your body and dictate who you can sleep with.
The funny thing is "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" would actually be an apt description of medicare for all (more social freedom and yet at a lower cost... and yet ironically those are a lot of the people that would be against it.
technically fiscally conservative just means making the least expensive choice... for example, in a economic system where pollution is taxed/fined appropriately its more fiscally conservative to embrace green tech (even at a higher upfront cost) than to have to be responsible for the long term and short term costs of coal/oil.
so the term "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" actually DOES make sense the problem is society itself doesn't make sense; society itself is illogical and self destructive.
No it wouldn't lmao. Bernie makes private insurance illegal and covers several other healthcare things (such as vision, dental, and prescriptions) that other countries with socialized healthcare don't cover. His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars. His plan alone over 10 years will cost just as much, if not more, as the total US government's entire budget over 10 years (assuming the government doesn't increase it or decrease it).
@@Lycaon1765
1) private insurance can still cover anything bernie's medicare plan doesn't IE cosmetic surgery and theoretically non cosmetic augmentation for example when implantable technology becomes commercial... so no it doesn't make it illegally they just can't compete.. and theoretically they couldn't financially compete anyways so that's a moot point.
2) yes, his plan will just tens of trillions... NEW FLASH the current system ALREADY cost more... 2-5 trillion more over 10 years to be exact.
and no, it would be about 2.5 years worth of the economy over 10 years... and again the current system already cost more.
3) many country already do this to a slightly lesser degree, bernie's plan pretty much covers EVERYTHING that could be needed, which is what people should expect.
4) your healthcare system sucks, and obamacare (ACA) was nothing more than a bandaid for healthcare system, even obama originally ran on single payer, obamacare (ACA) was the compromise, a republican plan(romneycare), that even republicans refused to support.
@@Lycaon1765 "His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars." and even according to conservative think tanks it is cheaper than what we have currently. Fail argument, go sit in the corner. Don't forget your donkey hat son.
...but muh private dictatorship... democracy bad... workers bad...
@Kevin Michael Glad to see someone know that the US had pretty socialistic policies after WW2.
I strongly disagree, it's not a oxymoron being fiscally conservative and socially liberal because embraces perfect individualism and self ownership, wake up people politics are NOT white and black you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and even people can be socially conservative BUT leftist in economy.
It is a bit of generalization.
What has happened is libertarians have become the dominant voice for Jeffersonian Republicanism.
However Contemporary Libertarianism is highly influenced by Hayek, Mises, and Ayn Rand who recommend a violation of Jeffersonian Republicanism.
Conservatives should remember that it was Jefferson who wrote the outlines for not only publicly funded primary school education but for publicly funded University education!
The fact that there is a conservative backlash against Sanders plan for free college education violates Jefferson's own ideas and principles and proposals.
What was Jefferson's reasoning? That Universal access to Education is an institution that strengthens democracy so therefore it should be considered an appropriate interpretation of the general welfare clause.
You can make the same Jeffersonian argument for Medicare4All. To be purely Jeffersonian it might be interpreted as Medicaid4all because it strengthens states rights over federal government.
But Jefferson was all for federal spending for the sake of the general welfare. What he did during his presidency was created an interstate highway system with federal funding as well.
The Republicans have been completely Hijacked by shallow neoliberal apologists for decades.
Disagree! Oil &gas is propped up today with subsidies. Getting rid of them will create a more level playing field. Green innovation will win if less money went to bad actors. We may have even had a more green environment ages ago.
Is it conservatives or is it the furthest left wing candidate calling for removal of those subsidies?
@@generalparrish9818 its corrupt neo-cons that aren't actually principled in their supposed libertarian/conservative views
republicans - bible + weed
Opioid of the masses
Fiscally intelligent and Socially aware .. shouldn’t we all be?
I don't agree that socially liberal and fiscally conservative policies are necessarily in contradiction. You state the position of fiscal conservatives as they are now, with a bias against environmental policies. But this is a very short term position. In the longer term it makes far, far more sense fiscally to enact socially liberal and environmentally responsible policies. With rising sea levels and the damage to the environment, longer term liberal environmental policies make huge sense fiscally. In addition there is no necessary disjunction between fiscal conservativism and social liberalism and vice versa. The two don't necessarily have the same goals, results or motivation. It's unfortunately more complex than that.
I agree that the contradiction disappears if you define "Fiscally Conservative" as "I'm for efficient, low-waste, low-corruption government and $0 deficits and debts." Sounds great. But, often the path to get there requires Big Regulation, Big Social Programs and Big Infrastructure spending to stimulate confidence and growth. Also, if you run into a "Fiscal Conservative", ask them how much they want to cut Defense. If they hesitate to cut it by at least 50%, they don't get to wear the "Fiscal" fig leaf to cover their Conservatism anymore.
@@jones1618 I agree. A lot of so called fiscal conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are merely right wing hawks who cherry pick their targets and use the language of fiscal conservatism to suggest not spending money on things they don't ideologically agree with.
Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative really is just taking things case by case. We pay already pay taxes. Whether you vote blue or red you always seem to get a raise in taxes. Those taxes might as well go to things we want them to go to. Roads, Schools, Welfare programs(for those who really need them) and our military. Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to BS especially with other countries. As for social liberty, let people do as they wish. As long as it doesn’t affect your personal life.
You can believe in climate change and gay rights without wanting the government sticking their hands into every aspect of it. More government is not the solution to all problems. In fact it's the cause of most problems.
A few things to say here.
Entrepreneurs who start green companies do not because there are tax incentives. They start them because climate change had pushed them toward altruism. In addition, large corporations and wealthy individuals have increased income inequality due to the tax subsidies that come with these climate change initiatives. A carbon tax would incentivize companies to move toward greener solutions for their energy needs, but giving out government handouts in support of it is not a proper use of funds. We are facing a debt crisis that is larger than climate change and we cannot fight climate change without a private sector. A lot of millennials are making purchasing and investing decisions based on their climate beliefs, this is without government intervention.
The only ideology that is socially Liberal and economically capitalist is Social Democracy, and still, even that calls for regulation of the markets.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and environmentally fucked in the head
The "fiscally conservative" talking point often only applies to welfare spending, anyway. It usually flies out the window the moment you talk about military spending or corporatism (or corporate socialism). That's why we have tasty nuggets like the fact that there are thousands of tanks sitting around in the Nevada desert and other places, being completely useless... because the fiscally conservatives in Congress couldn't bring themselves to cut military spending - despite the Pentagon itself saying it doesn't want any more tanks. What a waste of resources.
sounds like they are two-faced, they support solving the problem so long as it doesn't inconvenience them...
Really
Andy what a disingenuous statement. I bet you're a Bernie Bro.
@@seanie002 so what if he is? I've yet to see any action libertarians take to use our tax dollars for the community. Though they are a supporter of corporate welfare and profits over people
@@seanie002 hmm a number name you must be a cult member or a rusian troll doll.
I disagree with your view.
A person can coherently support both environmental regulations and still oppose deficit spending.Those are two separate things that aren't necessarily related.
All you've done is attribute specific views to the label "fiscal conservative" which make it incompatible with social liberalism. I think that's playing with definitions more than it's a real argument.
If I support:
- the GND
- corporate regulations that protect workers, human rights and the environment
- the right of every person to marry whomever they choose
- equal opportunities in education
- slashing of military spending to 10% of what it is now.
- massively raising taxes on wealth (not income)
- making deficit spending illegal by law (with some flexibility for cyclical economies and emergencies)
Then what am I? Does that not count as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
Besides woman rights and climate change, myself being left socially does indeed not affect many policies as I end up leaning right in most.
REAL Fiscal Conservatism would be FOR environmental regulation because such policies SAVE MONEY in the LONG RUN by avoiding the massive costs of EXTERNALITIES such as super fund cleanups, pollution related health consequences, etc.
We already are.
@@Lycaon1765 SAID: "We already are."
REPLY: Who is "we", and already are what?
I have friends who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They don’t want want the government involved but was personally very generous to organizations. They feel they want to know where their money is going.
Exactly! As someone who used to claim to be socially liberal/fiscally conservative I learned over time that the solutions to the problems I genuinely cared about required regulation and tax dollars. I now call myself a progressive.
I believe people have the right to do what they want while also lifting up those around me. So I’m a progressive libertarian...
@J sounds like your definition of libertarian must bee off a bit. The right to do what you want while not infringing on another’s rights is all it is in case your wondering...
To be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is not contradictory. It means to be someone who believes that free market capitalism yeilds the best results for all of society while rejecting a traditional conservative conformist lifestyle. If you believe that government programs are the only way to solve social problems, you are fiscally liberal. All David is doing here is conflating social and fiscal positions into the same thing so that he can call it contradictory to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I love how he describes them as libertarians even though conservativism is literally authoritarian while libertarianism is literally libertarian. This is a terrible representation.
It's not a contradiction. Libertarians value freedom over regulations and goverment interference. You can argue that regulations can help achieve the means that Libertarians care about socially but they simply care about ecomonic freedoms more.
Without regulations peoples freedoms and their ability to live a long, healthy, happy life are going to be interfered with.
Big business and the banks will do what they want and tyrannise us as they wish.
They could dump crap in our rivers, pay people a pittance, abolish breaks in the work place, fire people for no reason, put whatever junk they like in our food, mislabel that food if they felt like it, and no one could stop them.
In a capitalist society regulations are necessary.
What about socially conservative; economically liberal. And what about fiscally moderate.
I'm socially conservative and fiscally a communist
I always took "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" to mean someone who cares about social injustices, but also wants to be careful against extravagant, unnecessary excess spending. As somebody who's worked government contracts there is a LOT of waste, I mean literal decades of trillions of dollars down the toilet gone for nothing, people who work in government get awful complacent with a constant drip feed of tax money payrolling them (I should know, I worked with a lot of them). A person could for example support climate change regulations through increased tax penalties on high emission industries, which satisfies both socially liberal and fiscally conservative policy (addresses climate change while increasing government funding), that's at least how I understood it.
I feel that should be an issue of management and budgetary competence rather than politics.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. The key to success for this country is to have progressive type policies executed in a conservative manner. The trick is to be ready to allow folks to be left behind if they chose not to participate in the free market of goods, ideas and services. While, at the same time, offering the basic tools citizens need to thrive, a useful education and a very basic level of safety nets.
"Very basic" Hmmmm...lots of wriggle room there for the socially liberal.fiscally conservative brigade.
"What part of Libertarianism do you not like, the part where you have to make decisions for your own life, or the part where you don't get to make decisions about my life."
I gotta disagree. There are ways to deal with huge problems like climate change, poor public education, and income inequality. A mixed economy which implores responsible capitalist and responsible socialist policies doesn't necessarily require constant government intervention. Command and control doesn't work, because firms find a way around. Letting markets correct themselves is a better way, it's just that we see too much 'crony capitalism' that people now can't distinguish it from true capitalism.
All economies are mixed, except the U.S. doesn't have responsible capitalist policies and is lacking in responsible socialist policies. Sometimes we need a government to force a change that's financially and morally right - such as the Civil Rights Act.
@@50jakecs good points, I wish there was a way to have little more socialism without less capitalism. I fear we may swing the other way and use socialist policies irresponsibly too. One thing is for sure, we see far too many externalities left uncorrected or fixed cheaply and not thoroughly (Housing crisis, etc.)
Tell me you know nothing about Liberty without telling me you know nothing about liberty.
It makes plenty of sense. I don't want the government to interfere with our liberties and I want them to make smart financial decisions, not just spend at the public's whim because it "feels right". I don't want to be like France and have 42 overly generous pensions systems just because people want really good benefits. I don't want the government to be spending so much in unnecessary places with unneeded programs. The government needs to try to make good economic decisions so that everyone can benefit from the strengthened economy.
Spending money =/= unequivocal good for the unfortunate.
It's the illusion that people are rational and moral. It assumes that the social problems will solve themselves
I pointed out to my brother in law that lake County Illinois voted for trump and he was claiming the same argument. They like to claim liberalism but reap the benefits of conservative fiscal policies.
The future is in renewable energy. Conservative economy and taxes will likely get us there faster..
Bravo. These types of people are basically Republicans who do not want the social backlash.
I’m not sure I agree. Why can’t people be socially liberal about certain things and fiscally conservative about certain things. Why does it have to be so black and white? People are complicated.
Hey David,
I think the big problem with, "politics," is that we never address the layers of government, we just shoehorn everything into one big, "government," topic. We have federal, state, and local governments in the United States. My take on these layers is that the further the representation is from my living room, the less power they should have over me.
I think that the federal government should be a protector/enforcer of constitutional rights and economic regulations. It should provide oversight over state governments. It should also be the main defense against foreign entities.
States should be where the social programs happen, again, with federal oversight to make sure that people aren't getting robbed by the state governments. We've seen examples of state social programs being far superior to federal or even free market solutions. The great thing is that we can run 50 different experiments to determine which particular systems work best, then shift over to using those systems. With one big federal system, we'll pretty much be stuck with whatever train wreck the corrupt federal politicians and their lobbyists put together.
Which brings me to my main issue with federal government... corruption. Everything that the federal government touches gets corrupted. There's simply too much money at stake, and little/no oversight. The more power we give to the federal government to allocate money, the more lobbyists show up to vie for that money. Why would anyone want more federal social programs after they've seen what the current government has done with social security and healthcare?
You can be economically conservative and understand that our current implementation of capitalism is broken. Most importantly, the idea of the government picking winners and losers is just insanity. Subsidies and bailouts go against economic conservatism, and directly lead to corruption. Republicans might be for such things, but true economic conservatives are not.
If you want a succinct example of where I believe that social liberalism and economic conservatism can go hand in hand, then how about this... If you want to fix our current economic system, the first thing to do would be to enact an economic, "prime directive," law. US businesses can only do business with other countries that have rights/laws similar to our own. That would even the global playing field and do away with a lot of the foreign exploitation that happens at the hands of American corporations. It would put an end to cheap foreign labor and it would put an end to supporting foreign dictators in order to exploit their resources. China and Saudi Arabia would have to find someone else to prop up their evil regimes.
Regarding climate change, I'm tired of talking about it. Regardless of my opinion on the subject, I'm down with eliminating fossil fuel consumption, and with being stewards of the environment. I think any/all environmental protection at the federal level should be done strictly through regulation/law, and not through subsidies, taxes, tax credits, etc. Again, money is the tool of corruption.
Understand that these are only tidbits of my own social liberal/fiscal conservative ideas. As with other political views, there's a whole package that fits together, with way too much depth to cover in a response to a video. Also, like all political views, it's not perfect.
I support decentralization. That means a bigger state and local government and small federal government. I think that more issues should be addressed and solve by their respective state or local governments as opposed to federal level.
Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you want small government, just efficient government. Balance a budget, dont overspend (aka steal from future generations).
Small government, large corporations. Corporate capitalism is inherently authoritarian.
Deficits are unsustainable, destroying the environment is unsustainable. Quite simply resource depletion in a unsustainable fashion is no good for anybody.
I'm a progressive that doesn't think free college is the best use of resources. But I think single payer healthcare does since it will reduce total costs. Does that make me fiscally conservative?
Libertarians define tyranny only as coming from government, and freedom as just “freedom from government”. So if government reins in tyranny from corporations, then that itself is tyranny
I disagree. Most regulations and taxes don't actually achieve their intended purpose or are just poorly managed, you can be someone that is socially liberal who wants taxes that lower inequality, help the environment, but still be for a largely free market approach. You're being to general in your understanding of what this kind of person is about.
Libertarian rebuttals incoming... They are going to say "You want the government to use force, it is on you to justify that. I don't think that is ever justified."
The correct response to that is "without the state you hand the use of force over to whoever has the most power and money. Would you rather have an elected official who is accountable to his/her voters and can be removed in charge, or the head of GlaxoSmithKlein?"
@@ultrademigod
Because they are morons, they will say ""Yes, If you don't like them, take your money else were."
@@theatheistpaladin If they say they truly are morons.
You cannot simply take your money elsewhere, if they're pouring chemicals into the local rivers, or pumping harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, which is what happens when corporations are not held in check by regulations.
@@ultrademigod
With stupid people, you cannot make them realize they are stupid. The whole reason for sticking with simplistic thinking is so that you don't have to deal with nuance. The response will either be sue or tough shit.
I’m socially conservative but fiscally liberal.
Homelessness is easy, just round them up and send them to labor colony/re-education. Then provide resources to get on their feet, or else they’ll return to the camp.
Put concisely, if you aren't going to structure an economy to support social liberalism, your feelings of support towards social liberalism effectively do not matter. It's like saying "I support X but won't take steps to accomplish X."
They're for anything that doesn't cost them anything. They're really just selfish people that don't want to sound selfish.
You’re right. It is simplistic to call someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative a right winger that doesn’t hate gay people. The proper definition is a right winger that doesn’t hate gay people and wants to smoke weed.
I'm a Canadian and i consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are so much farther ahead and have won so many of the battles progressive Americans are fighting for now, universal health care, maternity leave, cheaper prescription drugs, legalized marijuana, access to abortion, cheaper post secondary education and on and on and on. These things are baked into the cake for Canadians and we would lose our shit if these things were clawed back. Canada has also proven you can have these types of programs and have balanced budgets and even surpluses. But over the past 4 years of liberal government we have added something like over 100 billion dollars to our debt and being a Canadian fiscal conservative i don't think its a very good idea to be adding up that type of crushing debt for future generations to pay off with either higher taxes or severe budget cuts.
I always thought that I was Socially liberal and financially conservative until I took a test and found out my views sit in the lower left of the political compass.
When I used to be a trumpist i thought i was authright but found out I was authleft when i took the test. Three years later and I sit comfortably in the bottom right quadrant. It’s more coherent than Pakman makes it seem.
Small government does not equate to anarchy. We libertarians are not anarchists. We dont want no government and therefore no regulations. We just look for the answer that requires the least ammount of government interference. Unlike our rivals who seem to use it as the answer to every ill humanity faces.
Nothing contradictory here. Keep your own house clean before throwing those rocks over here David.
I used to actually identify as socially liberal/fiscally conservative. Until I realised the 2 just dont coexist together, no matter how much i want them to. If I want the safety nets in place, its going to cost money. And I became OK with that, because in the grand scheme of things, its just money.
You assume that government subsidies, welfare programs, etc are good for social rights. Fiscal conservatism applies to the economics. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Disagree David. Fiscal conservatives like me, want to see balanced budgets. I want to see scrutiny on spending like the military industrial complex. Regarding regulations I want to see sensible regulations but not to the point of hindering the economy.
Investment in our tax dollars back in our communities is not wrong
I once honestly believed I leaned libertarian. But then I realized I'm actually just technocratic and libertarians are insanely ideological.
As an example, I think the government should run public safety, healthcare and infrastructure. Not because I like big government, but because I want the most efficient method to provide public goods. I am "fiscally conservative" in the sense that I don't want to waste money on inefficient ideological approaches.
There is zero evidence that those are run more efficiently by government. In fact one could say there is plenty of evidence to say they are the most inefficient.
I see no contradiction. A libertarian wants a small government. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative fits in line with that.
He is assuming that Fiscally Conservative is the worst of the greed fueled corporate monsters but business can be good if it provides a good product at a fair price, pays a fair wage, pays their taxes, and does not harm the environment.
Business if done ethically and responsibility is what fuels a good community.
I disagree with that stance. I don’t think you need regulation to address poor populations. That’s a culture issue. I can feel for the poor and not want to give half my earnings away to what is largely caused by poor decision making.
Same with the environment. Even with all the hysteria around Trump gutting the EPA and leaving the Paris Climate Accord, the US leads the world in lowering emissions.
On health care, I prefer to have full control of what I spend my money on. I don’t agree that everyone should be ok with giving up a significant chunk of their pay so that other people can have free healthcare. There’s an argument to be made that deregulation of the health care industry and better training early on in life would do more to fix health care than anything the government could come up with.
On top of that, the government spends money like its water with next to no real common sense or accountability. Its size means that everything it has its hands on is plagued by inefficiency. The only thing the government is good at is meddling in foreign affairs. Otherwise, there isn’t one branch, or government organization that does anything well. I don’t want a DMV experience when I go to a doctor.
In other words the Democratic establishment doesn't make any sense.
Your argument presumes that more government is the ONLY way to help the poor or fix the environment. This is wrong. The poor can be helped through private charities and the environment can be improved through technological innovations that arise out of free markets. For example: if someone were to invent a working fission reactor, they'd become massively wealthy and help the environment greatly.
I’m the kind of person who doesn’t make sense. Everyone assumes I’m a liberal till I open my mouth 💀
I'm fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
And even your characterization of “gay people” seems to imply you may have the same biases that a lot of these sorts of libertarians have about gays, which is to forget that they are not the well-to-do monolithic image created by the media (to push gay marriage as a distraction to the economic-inequality-intensifying time of the Obama era) but rather are often in need of government assistance in order to survive in a relatively socially conservative world that we live in.
Fiscal conservativism is kind of a joke. Because those people don't whine about rampant military spending. I don't want to tax the middle class much, but the rich can pay in a lot more than they are.
I think this really boils down to human nature. People want to do what they want to do and have no responsibilities to the outcomes. That might have worked for a while but with overpopulation and the explosion of the industrial age and capitalism, regulations are absolutely mandatory to keep this society from killing itself.
I still want an answer from “fiscal conservatives” about why they don’t want Medicare for All even though it would reduce the debt and deficit and give people more money in their pockets to grow the economy. The same for Climate Change isn’t it fiscally responsible to have a diverse portfolio.
I have an example . House painter.. "refinishes houses" not just brushing paint on but removing toxic dried paint too. This is a business, and with a business comes cost..... when government makes you pay more to do that job ,because of regulations on toxicity limitations, becomes resentment. pretty sure this the problem. If that painter was payed instead of taxed/regulated in permits. Libertarianism may not have ever existed.
Soc Lib + Eco Lib = progressive
Soc Con + Eco Con = conservative
Soc Con + Eco Lib = conservative
Soc Lib + Eco Con = conservative
People who consider themselves “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” want to be both of those things because they think they should be. They want to be socially liberal because they want to be a “good guy,” and they’re fiscally conservative because they somehow think that’s the “common sense” position to have.
I think it means something like: "My personal values are liberal but I believe the government should be handled in a conservative way" or something like that. It's a really weird position to have, I agree and probably means that these people are apolitical, liberal and don't want to think about it enough to make them realize that they've been rooting for the wrong side all along.
I think you've missed what liberalism is mate
I think that those who are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative are liberal on any issue that doesn't involve the economy.
I used to identify as a libertarian, saying the exact mantra of "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", although I probably am just incorrectly identifying myself. Yes, regulation is required to keep monopolies in check, to keep the upholding of the rights of the people, and to keep laws enforced. However, I am against aggressive regulation and red tape that create inefficiencies, like, it has to be necessary for the reasons I mentioned, else it is bad. Yes, I agree that we can "cut, cut, cut" in order to pay for social programs while also not increasing or even reducing taxation, because we can "cut, cut, cut" a huge amount of revenue from the defense budget over time if we decide we want to do it, like a few hundred billion per year. And yes, unless you are infringing on the rights of others, I think you should basically be able to do anything.
I know plenty of people who believe that economic progress is the best way to deal with climate change….?
If you are fiscally conservative, then you have a home in the democratic party. The numbers don't lie. over the last quarter century, the administrations which have reduced the deficit, have all been democrats, while every republican administration has exploded the deficit.... But that's the rub. The people who pretend to be "fiscally conservative", and let's face it- it's all theatrics, they don't really care about spending. It's ALL about what is being bought. And libertarians tend to want the same things as republicans, by and large.
Libertarianism: Socially awkward, fiscally conservative.
This all depends on whether you consider climate change an economic issue or a social issue.
I’m personally a social fascist and a fiscal anarchist.
Doesn't 'fiscal' relate to taxation and government spending rather than regulation?
But cutting taxes means lower revenue, meaning its more difficult to be fiscally conservative.
Conservatives will never admit that trickle-down economics is a scam.
Doesn't regulation frequently cut into potential profits or increase government spending? Perhaps that is the fiscal connection?
Regulations have to do with spending. Enforcing a regulation requires spending money. A regulation that creates a program (such as the Social Security system) costs money. Regulations are also referred to as laws.
@@50jakecs yeah, fair enough.
My main issue is that, to me, fiscal conservatives should be people who want to pay for the important stuff, and not for frivolous stuff while making sure they have enough income to cover expenses. You know, actual fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the political term fiscal conservative has come to mean slash spending, but not raise revenue (taxes). In fact they tend to want to cut revenue. That's different than actual fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the term fiscal conservative does not mean fiscal responsibility as it should. Not at all.
I want marijuana legalized!
Packman is dishing out facts.
Fiscally conservative to me means embrace responsible climate change regulation as a way to save huge amounts of money in the Long Run not the next quarter it’s a balance just like freedom Social libertarian not social anarchist
Essentially...I'm socially liberal, but am against any regulation that may balance or check social inequalities!
Obviously some are principled and get bashed by conservatives, like Tomi Lahren (out of all people) coming out as pro-choice
Adolf loved his dogs and built great roads. Being able to do good and deciding not to is what makes a real monster. Ms Lahren is pro choice because that affects her somehow. So she has an interest in it.
She gets no cookie for that.
@@offroadskater I agree, no cookie for Lahren.