Which ideology do you prefer between the two?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I am not sure, JCL. Libertarian thought can be compatible with both sides of the abortion debate. The harm principle comes to mind in being a potential bastion of support for the pro-life stance, assuming here that you believe the unborn become people prior to birth!

I heard Walter Block give libertarian reasoning for abortion via the expulsion principal. However I do subscribe to what you just explained which is emphatically confirmed by Scripture.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If "liberal-libertarianism" involves an actual somewhat consistent commitment to non-coercion, then the first.  If it's just some thin veneer of tolerance that only extends to sex and drugs and whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment, then more likely the latter.

[Marnetmar]

Option 1. Pretty much what I consider myself politically.

[Adam Griffin]

Obviously I have experience in dealing with a culture that embraces both of the broader conservative elements outlined here. Neither are fun, but...

Option 2 (Normal Southron)

[politicallefty]

A lot would depend on how strong each ideology is in each option. Generally, I'd go with option 1. The more extreme elements of social conservatism include imprisonment or even the death penalty for so-called moral sins (such as Sharia law countries). Social conservatism also tends not to be pro-science. I see nothing good coming from a socially conservative society.

[Napoleon]

Option one

[Vega]

Liberal-libertarianism.

[TNF]

Obviously Option 2, because being able to be alive is kind of important.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not quite sure. Depends on the flavors of all involved, and not sure even then if I could make a decision. Also, socially conservative does not equate to socially authoritarian, for the record, which (IMO) gives social conservatism a leg up that social authoritarianism wouldn't. At least for me. Do by social liberalism you mean gun bans and junk food regulations?

The idea that "junk food regulations" is either a particularly important, or particularly dangerous, pillar/example of left-wing social policy is one of those right-wing memes that would be laughable if it wasn't so effective at being a harmful distraction.  I will grant that gun policy is in fact a centrally important marker on this axis as it currently exists, though even there I think that it shouldn't be.

What makes this even more silly is the poster boy for this type of policy is a guy who was elected to public office twice as a Republican and never as a Democrat.

[Vosem]

I like to think of myself as being the first.

[AggregateDemand]

I'm assuming the poll choices mean that economic freedom will be restricted, but social order/freedom is still up for debate.

If my economic freedoms are gone, I'm not following any social rules. I'm going to test the limits and see how long I can stay drunk, high, and armed before I die. No reason to live as livestock in a economically liberal world. If I can't produce, I want hedonistic excess to kill me.

[courts]

it depends very much on the time and place. option 2 is pretty much my worldview though... even if i detest the 'framing' and would say this isn't really how people view politics in the 'real world.'

[TJ in Oregon]

Option 2 obviously.

[traininthedistance]

Obviously Option 2, because being able to be alive is kind of important.

Tell that to Alan Turing.

[politicallefty]

Obviously Option 2, because being able to be alive is kind of important.

That's only true if you live your life according to the socially conservative beliefs that have been established. Otherwise, you face fines, imprisonment, or even the death penalty.

[THE_TITAN]

I'd prefer Liberalism. I think government has an important part to play in society and the economy but based on those two choices I'd much rather prefer Liberalism. Social conservatism is just archaic and has no appeal to me and on the economy I think a free-market approach with some controls in the most successful approach. It might cause some income disparity etc. but the pros outweigh the cons.

[H. Ross Peron]

Obviously Option 2, because being able to be alive is kind of important.

That's only true if you live your life according to the socially conservative beliefs that have been established. Otherwise, you face fines, imprisonment, or even the death penalty.

The question is how socially conservative? Something like Saudi Arabia or Chile?

[TDAS04]

Option 1.

[Mechaman]

Not answering.

What these options mean is only determined by how fare the descriptions are taken.  "Liberal libertarianism", especially, could mean anything from socially liberal laissez faire liberalism to being all out Georgism.  "Socially conservative/Economic Leftism" could mean a state that is pro-life and has a nationalized steel industry or a place where blacks are killed on site but property ownership is abolished.

So yes, dumb poll.