Comment by brm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's really actually quite difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You can be fiscally conservative and socially neutral maybe or socially laissez faire but not socially progressive or socially liberal.

If you want social liberalism, money has to be spent on programs that enable social progress or has to be spent on enforcement of socially liberal laws and regulations, (history has shown it won't happen otherwise). This is the opposite of what we know fiscal conservatism to be in America.

I know this sounds nitpickish, but the closest you can get is to say something like I want liberal policies as cheaply as possible and unfortunately for those who want to claim the middle with that, that's essentially the policy of liberalism and the left. That's what liberals want too...

What socially liberal, fiscally conservative generally means is I don't care what you do but I don't wanna pay for it and that's not the middle, that's libertarian.

Sorry for the rant but I'm generally tired of seeing a claim for the middle being used as a substitute for I want socially liberal policies but I don't want to feel bad about not fully supporting them because I don't wanna give up any money...

This probably isn't you of course, but it sure is a lot of people who claim to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"

I don't buy that social liberalism and expensive welfare programs go hand in hand. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to broach society with progressivism sans nanny state sans righteous indignation.

While libertarian ideology may be akin to some brand of utilitarian nihilism, we don't have to lower ourselves to that level of impersonal cold distance. Government need not be devoid of personality for us to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

We don't need to give way to expensive social welfare programs in order to have a clean conscience.

This is a very reasonable comment.

The primary difference between being socially liberal and socially conservative is the idea of the government’s role in our lives (and more generally, collectivism vs. individualism). The socially liberal concepts of universal health care, social security, welfare, public schools and universities, environmental regulations and others all require funding in the form of taxation and then spending in form of government programs.

This type of taxation and the growth of government spending goes against the basic principles of fiscal conservatism.

Until robot-powered post-scarcity and UI changes the fundamental structure of society and government, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a paradox.

Yeah, by socially liberal I meant small government that stays out of my bedroom and wallet. I can see how the term can mean something else to others.

When I think of liberal, I think of people like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. I realize my US-bias is showing, but when the country was founded the idea of a country where liberty was to be maximized was inconceivable. Currently, the people called conservatives are trying to conserve the liberal ideas of the late 18th century.

According to Wikipedia,

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."

I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.

What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.

Your definition of socially liberal is quite different from most people’s.. every time I see this it just seems like arguing with yourself for the sake of arguing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com