NationStates Jolt Archive

Take the group of people that believe in social libertarianism. Pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization. The group saying "Get the government out of our bedrooms". Members of the ACLU. People warning about increasing losses of our privacy.

Why are they (by a large majority) also members of the economic Left (socialism, welfare liberalism, etc)? Those who agree with both economic freedom and personal freedom are ignored as a fringe third-party (Libertarians).

I am a strong social libertarian, for reasons I have come to on my own and through experience and discussion. There's really no way you could convince me that the government has any right to interfere in our private lives.

I am however undecided/open-minded on economic matters. I'm no economist. I see good in capitalism, and I see good in welfare liberalism. I think that companies competing with each other in a free market is a powerful force for progress. I also think that no hospital should turn away a seriously injured person because they cannot afford treatment.

So do I follow the majority of my fellow social libertarians into the Democratic Party, to oppose the social authoritarianism of the Republicans? Or do I join up with the Libertarian Party, and remain an outspoken critic of both sides?

I'm just curious why believing in women's and gays' rights overwhelmingly places you in the economic Left, because I see the two sides (social versus economic) as completely independant.

*tag* i'll write a response to this later considering I fall into both categories.

Social Libertarians are placed on the left because people want all political alignments to fall on a line that reads from left to right. They don't want to admit that there are more dimensions to it than that, because by admitting this they would have to admit that the idea of bipartisan politics is flawed, and no member of the two major parties wants to give third parties any more power than they already have.

Because they're compassionate. It figures that people who support feminism and gay rights and oppose capital punishment would also support the poor.

Because they're compassionate. It figures that people who support feminism and gay rights and oppose capital punishment would also support the poor.

Why force others to be compassionate though? That is wrong.

Why force others to be compassionate though? That is wrong.

Social libertarians do not force other people to be compassionate; rather they use the government as a tool to ensure that compassionate acts are executed even if the majority of people, by themselves, would not spend the time or money to do so.

In my opinion the two go together primarily because, in both cases, the government uses its resources to advance the cause of certain groups who society might, by itself, ignore/harm. The same way they use the government to take care of market deficiences (read: forcing companies to pay for the unaccounted cost to society of pollution). Meanwhile social authoritarians use the government to enforce the views of the majority onto everyone, and economic rightists enhance the aspects of the free market that most successful, not least.

Left-leaners take what doesn't work and try to fix it. Right-leaners take what does work (at least for a majority) and try to further it.

Because they're compassionate. It figures that people who support feminism and gay rights and oppose capital punishment would also support the poor.
Shouldn't compassion be voluntary?

Shouldn't compassion be voluntary?

You know, this is one of the fundamental stumbling blocks for Libertarianism, IMO. I am poltically left, and I feel just the opposite - compassion should be involuntary. It should be the default setting in us all, and if not - then maybe one needs examine oneself closely.

while i'm inclined to be idealistic and say that everyone is good and will help others out...

i think there are more greedy people out there who will rather keep what's theirs.

i also think that libertarians are nuts with the "pay for what you use" shit. i mean, are you going to have toll roads everwhere? do policemen only get paid when someone can afford to hire them to chase after their attackers? then why would someone be a policeman? same deal with firemen.

personally, i would rather have my taxes pay for them to protect everyone all the time than to just protect those who can afford protection. if a poor woman is raped, she deserves to have her rapist caught just as much as a rich woman.

@ Dakini: Libertarians don't want to privatize everything. They believe that the government's job is to protect its citizens from harm and coercion. That includes government-run police and fire departments.

I am however undecided/open-minded on economic matters. I'm no economist. I see good in capitalism, and I see good in welfare liberalism. I think that companies competing with each other in a free market is a powerful force for progress. I also think that no hospital should turn away a seriously injured person because they cannot afford treatment.

So do I follow the majority of my fellow social libertarians into the Democratic Party, to oppose the social authoritarianism of the Republicans? Or do I join up with the Libertarian Party, and remain an outspoken critic of both sides?

I'm just curious why believing in women's and gays' rights overwhelmingly places you in the economic Left, because I see the two sides (social versus economic) as completely independant.

Politicial alliances. Oh...crap, you'll probably want more than that huh?

The reason the social left and the economic left are together in america are because of political alliances left over after Southern Christians left the Democratic party in the 70's. You probably are well aware that our Economic Right is considered "left" in Europe. Seeing how they want to "liberalize" otherwise government-run commerce, they occupy the same position as our own economic right.

Thus the distinction is not a natural one. It merely represents the status quo of generalizations one can make about the political parties and their base. It is no wonder then, why there were many reports of fiscal conservatives being rather irate with the current administration's economic policies. Though it never transformed into a shifting of alliances, the party was torn internally.

Look at the Gubernator (Arnold); his social liberal stance alienates the current administration, yet they had him front row center during the party convention. His policies are fiscally conservative, in a state that has been plauged by rampant state spending associated more with lefties in office than righties. Yet the Gubernator represents no strong social conservative message, indeed quite the opposite.

There are of couse, countless examples one could give. I suggest that you simply live, proud of your status as an independent, and work to force the two parties to gain your vote through superior legislation and policy...not party loyalty. Support both and yet neither, vote libertatiran when their canidate is better than the others, vote your concience and be true to your own political agenda.

It brings in the concept of levelling. Having government-funded police and fire departments levels some of the differences between rich and poor people, giving them both equal protection. How about healthcare though? Should a rich person have access to better treatment, because they can pay more? Or should healthcare be a capitalist business...if you can't afford the painkillers or anasthetics, you have surgery without them? How about schooling...should we even have public schooling, or should schooling be purely a business too?

Basically, if you are poor, just how much should the government provide you?

Free cosmetic surgery?

How equal can we all get?

It's questions like that I try to answer to see where I fall on the economic scale. I've done the politicalcompass.org test, and I got a 0 economically, and a -8 libertarian.

@ Dakini: Libertarians don't want to privatize everything. They believe that the government's job is to protect its citizens from harm and coercion. That includes government-run police and fire departments.
try explaining that to this one libertarian then.

he tried telling me that saying a woman deserves justice after being raped was an argument from emotion. he also suggested that if you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it (so if your house is never robbed, you should never need to pay for the police)

try explaining that to this one libertarian then.

he tried telling me that saying a woman deserves justice after being raped was an argument from emotion. he also suggested that if you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it (so if your house is never robbed, you should never need to pay for the police)
I would say that this "Libertarian" is actually an anarchist who thinks he's a Libertarian. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know the distinction.

@Chodolo: I personally think that healthcare would fall under the government protecting the people from harm. Perhaps that's why I'm not a pure Libertarian... although I am pretty far entrenched into that part of the political graph.

he tried telling me that saying a woman deserves justice after being raped was an argument from emotion. he also suggested that if you don't use it, you shouldn't have to pay for it (so if your house is never robbed, you should never need to pay for the police)
Well, extreme libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism...basically everything is completely privatized, the government disbanded, and capitalism rules all.

The Libertarian Party does not support privatizing the police force, etc. I guess you could just say they're more moderate than the anarchists.


Interestingly, the extreme economic Left, the communists, also believe in anarchy as an end result.

well, this guy seems to worship ayn rand... he was shocked that i'd never heard of her much before he went on rants about her. i think it's more of an american facination with her. possibly because of narcissism... she did use the u.s. as a starting point for her model of an ideal society.

oddly enough, doesn't the states have the largest gap between teh rich and the poor?