Liberalism And Conservatism

[Tigers!]

Thus the labels "liberal" and "conservative" become barely meaningful for most people, most of the time, and while they do have their uses, they are in many cases a cause of more confusion and misunderstanding than they clear up.

"Progressive", "socialism" are other words that are barely meaningful.
We might have to start all over again with new labels.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

It's not actually that difficult.

Money is needed, but "more money" doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. Spend money wisely, and where it will accomplish the goal it's intended to accomplish. And if it's not accomplishing that goal, stop spending it.

Not all social programs are created equal. Some have more identifiable and measurable outcomes, or serve a social good that almost everyone agrees is worthwhile. School lunch programs, for example, have widely been supported by both political parties and people of all income levels. We all know that having a meal is important in a day full of learning, we all know that some kids have less than others and need a helping hand to get a healthy and filling meal. It supports overall childhood health which is well established as an indicator of future success. It supports a level of equal opportunity that I think we all generally want in place.

On the other hand, I would say that publicly funded wet shelters, and safe drug use locations are perhaps not a wise use of funds. I know they sound nice, but looking at the repercussions in the areas they've been tried, I don't think they benefit the public and arguably increase risks for a whole lot of people.

Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean don't spend any money. It means spend it wisely and be sure that it's going to work, because it's other people's money that you're spending. Being fiscally conservative generally means one believes the government has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, and should act as a prudent intermediary for our funds.

All the self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" I've ever heard bloviate have been against spending money on gov't programs because that money could be used to cut taxes. They have been anti-government.

 

[Emily Lake]

Clearly not all of them...

I consider myself to be largely fiscally conservative. Harry Bosch appears to agree with my view on it. So "all" seems to be a bit hyperbolic on your part.

 

[laughing dog]

Clearly not all of them...

I consider myself to be largely fiscally conservative. Harry Bosch appears to agree with my view on it. So "all" seems to be a bit hyperbolic on your part.

You have no clue about my experiences.

The term  Fiscal_conservatism has a well known meaning

In American political theory, fiscal conservatism or economic conservatism[1] is a political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility with an ideological basis in capitalism, individualism, limited government, and laissez-faire economics.[2][3] Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt.[4]

People who believe in fiscal conservatism are typically called fiscal conservatives. Nothing in fiscal conservatism requires that spending is done so that benefits from the spending exceed the costs.

But hey, if you wish to placed within that defined group, that's okay by me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Stoically liberal, fiscally conservator, and pragmatic ...

I was hoping Dr Zoid would chime in with his anti liberalism.

Why would I? I am super liberal. In every regard. You seem really really confused about this.

A missunderstanding about conservatives is that they're against change. They're not.

Both categories go back to the French revolution, or more precisely, what to do about the Jacobins.

The Jacobins were about instating sweeping and rapid reform, because the world, they thought, wasn't fair. They wanted to quickly fix it.

Edmund Burke's reply was that, what if the Jacobins didn't quite understand exactly why the things that were working was working, and how society all hangs together? If we have misunderstood anything along the way, reforms can lead to a catastrophy. Which is what happened in the revolution. This is what liberals and conservatives have been arguing about since

The fundamental difference in strategy is that liberals want to fix everything now now now, and if anything goes wrong, we'll deal with that later, with more reform. On balance they think it's worth it.

While conservatives want to change one thing at a time, slowly slowly slowly. It might not be fair. But at least it's working.

Personally, I think the fact that these are both in operation is why modern liberal democracies are so powerful. The fact that both sides yell at eachother and call the other idiot, is a fundamental aspect about the modern world, and we should both be grateful the other side exist. If liberals got to do everything they wanted, it would lead to unstable catastrophy. If conservatives got everything they wanted, society would just grind to a halt, and also lead to dynsfunctional catastrophe. I do think it's, fundamentally, a symbiotic relationship.

But I do enjoy calling conservatives idiots and making fun of them. And liberals tend to be more pleasant to hang out with.

 

[aupmanyav]

I am a conservative, but not a die-hard one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But one very important lesson from history. Both the conservatives and liberals in the French revolution were wrong. Both about each other and about what changes were necessary, how to fix society and most importantly, everyone was super super wrong about how the economy worked.

The number one lessons should be to stay humble, don't be so damn cocksure and your opponent is probably smarter than you think.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Clearly not all of them...

I consider myself to be largely fiscally conservative. Harry Bosch appears to agree with my view on it. So "all" seems to be a bit hyperbolic on your part.

You have no clue about my experiences.

The term  Fiscal_conservatism has a well known meaning

In American political theory, fiscal conservatism or economic conservatism[1] is a political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility with an ideological basis in capitalism, individualism, limited government, and laissez-faire economics.[2][3] Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt.[4]

People who believe in fiscal conservatism are typically called fiscal conservatives. Nothing in fiscal conservatism requires that spending is done so that benefits from the spending exceed the costs.

But hey, if you wish to placed within that defined group, that's okay by me.

Applying liberal or conservative to fiscal policy easily gets confusing because so much has happened and so fast with the economy and in the field of economics.

At varying periods in history the term liberal and conservative have glumbed onto that periods particular fad of the day, and then history moves on and then the terminology gets weird.

I often get the feeling that what conservatives mean when they say what economic policies they support its that they support sensible economic policies. Ie, whatever it is that makes us rich they're for. Which isn't saying much. My impression.

While liberals often start with what the result they want should be, and skip the part of how we're to get there. That's no theory at all.

When it comes to fiscal policy politicians just seem to say stuff voters want to hear. The global economy dicatates what they can do. So that's what they do. And then they all pretend any growth is because of some thing they did, and any contraction is blamed on the oponents. They all talk shit. The stuff that matters is too long term to be able to be attributed to any single person or party.

 

[bilby]

The number one lessons should be to stay humble, don't be so damn cocksure and your opponent is probably smarter than you think.

That's excellent advice.

Someone should give it to you one day. And you should listen carefully when they do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The number one lessons should be to stay humble, don't be so damn cocksure and your opponent is probably smarter than you think.

That's excellent advice.

Someone should give it to you one day. And you should listen carefully when they do.

What I am hearing is that you think I give excellent advice.

Thank you, Sir. That is most kind