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

[Lambsbread]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Different definitions of freedom from the perspectives of classical liberalism and modern liberalism, etc.

[Tayya]

Their opinions hurt people, but I won't go as far as to dismiss their entire personalities because they define themselves as a certain direction in regards to politics. But their political personalities are big HPs.

I would absolutely not mind if they chose, voluntarily and completely without government assistance, to shut up for the rest of their lives, though.

[Cassius]

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.

What has smoking pot got to do with 'individual equality', whatever that is. Anyway, a right to live above the poverty line? Is this another example of the endlessly expanding list of 'rights' in today's world.

[Lambsbread]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Different definitions of freedom from the perspectives of classical liberalism and modern liberalism, etc.

Understood, but I still don't see it as that black and white.

Anyway, a right to live above the poverty line? Is this another example of the endlessly expanding list of 'rights' in today's world.

You've got to be kidding.

[Tayya]

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.

What has smoking pot got to do with 'individual equality', whatever that is. Anyway, a right to live above the poverty line? Is this another example of the endlessly expanding list of 'rights' in today's world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not exactly expanding a list of rights, it's implementing one that already exists. Of course, one is free to disagree with this declaration.

[Cassius]

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.

What has smoking pot got to do with 'individual equality', whatever that is. Anyway, a right to live above the poverty line? Is this another example of the endlessly expanding list of 'rights' in today's world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not exactly expanding a list of rights, it's implementing one that already exists. Of course, one is free to disagree with this declaration.

Gosh, that was embarrassing. I genuinely did not know that was in the UN declaration of human rights (mind you that thing makes for long reading). I do however, disagree with that particular 'right' in both concept and practice.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Different definitions of freedom from the perspectives of classical liberalism and modern liberalism, etc.

Understood, but I still don't see it as that black and white.

What do you not see in black and white? You seem to be the one asserting that X is awful, or that X is illogical, or that X is inconsistent. I'm attempting merely to have you step back and realize that ideologies outside yours exist, and that they, when matched with the correct definitions and terminology, can be cohesive and can make sense. I really didn't want to have to put any effort into a post in this awful thread, but you just had to keep pushing.

[Lambsbread]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Different definitions of freedom from the perspectives of classical liberalism and modern liberalism, etc.

Understood, but I still don't see it as that black and white.

What do you not see in black and white? You seem to be the one asserting that X is awful, or that X is illogical, or that X is inconsistent. I'm attempting merely to have you step back and realize that ideologies outside yours exist, and that they, when matched with the correct definitions and terminology, can be cohesive and can make sense. I really didn't want to have to put any effort into a post in this awful thread, but you just had to keep pushing.

Oh, now I understand what you're getting at. Sorry, I was seeing your post differently than you had intended it to be seen. But accepted regardless.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Social leftism carries implications that are anathema to me. For that matter, fiscal rightism means little to me per se. Is it referring more towards economic rightism or fiscal conservatism? Perhaps it means neither, or both. It just isn't a term that I have assigned meaning to.

     Judging the terms based on their own merits, I don't really have a positive view. In context I imagine the person is understood to be a libertarian, in which case any such person describing oneself in this way would be more accurately characterized as being deeply confused.

[Sol]

HP.

Generally HP. It's unfair to say that they're all in 'yeah, screw those icky poor people as long as I have my weed!' territory, but a lot are.

Might as well say:"I belong to social circles where certain kinds of bigotry are accepted but others aren't!"

I'm with my fellow reds on this one.

Me too.