Opinion of people who describe themselves as "Socially Left, Fiscally Right"

[TNF]

I voted ….

I'm thinking of upper-class social liberals that don't know they have the Libertarian option, or don't want to split their vote.

Libertarianism is not a real ideology.

[Mechaman]

The people in this thread ought to consider that fiscal conservatives just might have reasons for their views other than a hatred of the poor.

The bigots voting HP don't care.  They've made up their mind.

Oh I don't think that "fiscal conservatives" hate the poor.  If there is anything that "fiscal conservatives" are guilty of, it's being naive.

Maybe, but to think they all are (or any specific one) is ignorant and bigoted.

Granted.

Some of them, like krazen and Bourbon Democrat, genuinely do hate poors.  And from personal experience, I think it's quite accurate to say that some fiscal conservatives, especially those who have never been laid off, are pretty naive about how some basic government functions help society.  Like our social safety nets for instance.

You can call that ignorant or bigoted because I dared comment on a mentality that is common amongst people who believe x thing, but I'm at least basing it on experience and not assuming the worst out of people.  Your line of thinking is pretty much an artful dodge, as it means that no matter what anybody says about fiscal conservatives, they are ignorant and bigoted.

I am not talking about blacks, Mexicans, Irish, Jews, Polish, English, Germans, or any other race or ethnicity (ie, things that people legitimately can't change).  These are political beliefs.  They shouldn't be excluded from being analyzed just because you have a problem with criticism.  I understand that you are too used to hearing about living in your mother's basement and playing WOW all day, so I'll just chalk this up to GENERIC RESPONSE SYNDROME.

[Deus Naturae]

Isn't Krazen a troll? I mean, I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually mean what he says, he's just trying to get people on here angry.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

[TNF]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

Not to mention that being "socially left" is not the same thing as being "socially liberal." Those terms are not interchangeable.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

'Yeah, screw those icky poor people as long as I have my weed!'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/6db7b71c97ea

So... You're supposed to ignore all other issues and let gay marriage be the only thing that influences your votes?

Only if you support gay marriage. If you don't, you're supposed to ignore the issue so as not to "vote against your economic interests."

[Redalgo]

My opinion is that they need to learn to use the label "classical liberal" instead, or start calling themselves libertarian if they live in the States and don't want to confuse people.

[dead0man]

Granted.

Some of them, like krazen and Bourbon Democrat, genuinely do hate poors.  And from personal experience, I think it's quite accurate to say that some fiscal conservatives, especially those who have never been laid off, are pretty naive about how some basic government functions help society.  Like our social safety nets for instance.

You can call that ignorant or bigoted because I dared comment on a mentality that is common amongst people who believe x thing, but I'm at least basing it on experience and not assuming the worst out of people.  Your line of thinking is pretty much an artful dodge, as it means that no matter what anybody says about fiscal conservatives, they are ignorant and bigoted.

I think you maybe reading more into my post than I put there.  Your post said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which seemed to be agreeing with me that you can't judge an individual as a "hater of poors" just because they chose to label themselves an economic conservative.  I wasn't referring to your post.  I was talking about posts like

Libertarianism is not a real ideology.

But you're probably right about that last bit too.

[TNF]

My opinion is that they need to learn to use the label "classical liberal" instead, or start calling themselves libertarian if they live in the States and don't want to confuse people.

Classical liberals aren't the same thing as modern "libertarians" in the American sense, though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

'Yeah, screw those icky poor people as long as I have my weed!'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/6db7b71c97ea

So... You're supposed to ignore all other issues and let gay marriage be the only thing that influences your votes?

Only if you support gay marriage. If you don't, you're supposed to ignore the issue so as not to "vote against your economic interests."

I've yet to hear a single good reason for why gay marriage should be opposed. It's one of the most cut-and-dry issues, unlike the federal budget or even other "social issues" like abortion (to some extent, I admit).

[Deus Naturae]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Not to mention that being "socially left" is not the same thing as being "socially liberal." Those terms are not interchangeable.

Yeah, this is a good point. I know a good number of people who describe themselves as "socially progressive" or something like that, and they seem less interested in getting government out of social matters, and more interested in having government engineer society towards their own values.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective:

"i want people to have their rights and be free, but i don't really care if they're stuck making minimum wage while some people make billions"

To quote an Enter Shikari song (because that's soooo me) "freedom is not the choice between what job and what car..."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

'Yeah, screw those icky poor people as long as I have my weed!'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/6db7b71c97ea

So... You're supposed to ignore all other issues and let gay marriage be the only thing that influences your votes?

Only if you support gay marriage. If you don't, you're supposed to ignore the issue so as not to "vote against your economic interests."

I've yet to hear a single good reason for why gay marriage should be opposed. It's one of the most cut-and-dry issues, unlike the federal budget or even other "social issues" like abortion (to some extent, I admit).

So you would vote for a pro-gay marriage right-winger over an anti-gay marriage economic progressive?  And anyone who wouldn't is being insulting?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

With all the obvious exceptions (c.f. actual Nazis, etc) it's generally not a great idea to judge people entirely - or even mostly. Perhaps not at all? - by their political views. Though the political outlook described in this thread is, how shall we say, certainly not one of the more noble ones.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective:

"i want people to have their rights and be free, but i don't really care if they're stuck making minimum wage while some people make billions"

To quote an Enter Shikari song (because that's soooo me) "freedom is not the choice between what job and what car..."

I really don't want to have to paraphrase my Into to Poli Sci class...

[Deus Naturae]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective:

"i want people to have their rights and be free, but i don't really care if they're stuck making minimum wage while some people make billions"

To quote an Enter Shikari song (because that's soooo me) "freedom is not the choice between what job and what car..."

You're assuming that all fiscons hold their views because they "really don't care" about the poor, which simply isn't true.

[freefair]

I probably fit into this category, though in a pragmatic, softcore way. Even minarchism is too much for me, let alone Anarchism which I feel is an evil ideology down there with Fascism,  Communism, etc etc. I'm more like Joe Llhota or European style classical-liberals (Danish Ventre, VVD, FDP, OVLD, Lux DP)

[Maxwell]

FF's clearly.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

You're assuming that all fiscons hold their views because they "really don't care" about the poor, which simply isn't true.

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective

[Maxwell]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective:

"i want people to have their rights and be free, but i don't really care if they're stuck making minimum wage while some people make billions"

To quote an Enter Shikari song (because that's soooo me) "freedom is not the choice between what job and what car..."

That isn't contradictory.

[ElectionsGuy]

FF's.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Options 2 or 3 for me.

This. It's really contradictory to hold views as such.

How so?

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective:

"i want people to have their rights and be free, but i don't really care if they're stuck making minimum wage while some people make billions"

To quote an Enter Shikari song (because that's soooo me) "freedom is not the choice between what job and what car..."

This post is one big flaming strawman.

[Deus Naturae]

You're assuming that all fiscons hold their views because they "really don't care" about the poor, which simply isn't true.

Going with a blanket Libertarian perspective

Well, I'm not so sure that an indifference towards poverty is a blanket Libertarian characteristic, but I'm not going to argue that since I really don't have enough data to back it up.

And I still don't see how the position you described would be contradictory. How does an individualist attitude towards economic issues ("I don't want my wealth to be redistributed by the government") contradict an individualist attitude towards social issues ("I don't want the actions of individuals to be restricted by the government")?

In fact, I'd say that there's a good argument to be made that they (economic and social freedom) are one and the same, as the second statement also encompasses economic issues.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Well, I'm not so sure that an indifference towards poverty is a blanket Libertarian characteristic, but I'm not going to argue that since I really don't have enough data to back it up.

And I still don't see how the position you described would be contradictory. How does an individualist attitude towards economic issues ("I don't want my wealth to be redistributed by the government") contradict an individualist attitude towards social issues ("I don't want the actions of individuals to be restricted by the government")?

I'm not saying it's contradictory in the sense that there is no continuity in wanting Government out of the life of the individual, I'm saying it's contradictory in the sense that caring about individual equality ends at economic equality. It's simply idiotic (imo) to support one's right to, say, smoke pot or own a firearm, but not one's right to live above the poverty line.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well, I'm not so sure that an indifference towards poverty is a blanket Libertarian characteristic, but I'm not going to argue that since I really don't have enough data to back it up.

And I still don't see how the position you described would be contradictory. How does an individualist attitude towards economic issues ("I don't want my wealth to be redistributed by the government") contradict an individualist attitude towards social issues ("I don't want the actions of individuals to be restricted by the government")?

I'm not saying it's contradictory in the sense that there is no continuity in wanting Government out of the life of the individual, I'm saying it's contradictory in the sense that caring about individual equality ends at economic equality. It's simply idiotic (imo) to support one's right to, say, smoke pot or own a firearm, but not one's right to live above the poverty line.

Difference between positive rights and negative rights, etc. All that I have to say is plainly obvious and shouldn't need to be spelled out.