NationStates Jolt Archive

...in people?

Why are the majority of people who favour free markets and all that also socially authoritarian?

Why are the majority of people who favour social welfare and all that also socially liberal?

Classic liberals/libertarians seem to be quite rare among the stream of right-wing conservatives and democratic socialists. Why is this?

I believe that capitalism works best when there is a standard base of opportunity for all people. That is why I support some social welfare.

Honestly, I don't know. I for one understand that a completely free market is as flawed as a completely controlled market; I've always been an advocate of a mixture where the economy is concerned.
As for civil liberties, we should be very, very free, no matter what ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or what have you we are. Hate crimes, however, I think should be punished much more severely than they already are.

What about Pinochet?

What about Pinochet?

A fairy tale character, he was a wooden doll whose nose grew each time he told a lie.

Could it be that especially in America that we have been told that to be moderate is to mean we have no real convictions and so we take the extreme stances on all positions?

Classic liberals/libertarians seem to be quite rare among the stream of right-wing conservatives and democratic socialists. Why is this?

Classic liberalism is rare because people capable of minding their own business are rare. Show me a guy who minds his own business and doesn't presume to tell others how they should live or work and I'll show you a classical liberal. Most people, unfortunately, think that people should be controlled in some way.

I don't think people should be controlled unless they cause trouble for others, which makes me a classical liberal. Others can do as they like, as long as they don't trouble me or mine. If they do, I'll hammer them.

-snip-
Yeah, - weird, ain't it? (and I for one an among that libertarian minority)

Well, this is just my opinion, but liberalism and conservatism have usually been equated to change versus the status quo. In the economic arena at least, it seems that because of the change from the previous era that things got reversed. Then that status quo would have been against free trade, now, due to the changes in society and pressures(both internal and external), the status quo is in support of free markets. Of course, it's not as simple or extreme as I tried to explain, but hey, it's only an opinion.

Good question.

I believe that at *the very least*, capitalism must be kept in check enough to ensure equal opportunity.

I also think that social libertarianism is the greatest way to ensure happiness and prevent dictatorship- some things the government simply shouldnt have a say in.

Why my beliefs must come together to fit the status-quo of the left I can't explain :p

I'm a social libertarian and an economic libertarian.

Classic liberalism is rare because people capable of minding their own business are rare. Show me a guy who minds his own business and doesn't presume to tell others how they should live or work and I'll show you a classical liberal. Most people, unfortunately, think that people should be controlled in some way.

I don't think people should be controlled unless they cause trouble for others, which makes me a classical liberal. Others can do as they like, as long as they don't trouble me or mine. If they do, I'll hammer them.

Hell yeah that's what I'm talking about. Let people do what they want, what they believe is right, moral, etc. But if it affects another person in a negative way, then they get punished.

Along with a mixture of economic policies. A free market with a good base of opportunities for all people so that wealth and power isn't concentrated. But not too much, as people will get lazy and corrupt and won't go out and work and fight like is necessary.

What about Pinochet?


A fairy tale character, he was a wooden doll whose nose grew each time he told a lie.

LMAO! Best description I've ever heard of him! :gundge:

I would argue that in fact the vast majority of American's fit the classic liberal mode of beliving there is a collective obligation to protect each other's political and civil rights and to care for those in distress while at the same time believing in individual responsiblity and fiscal soundness in government. This use to be the mainstay of republicanism in the days of the Rockerfeller RepublicanThe problem is the nature of our political process and modern changes in that process have resulted with both parties being controlled by the extremes. The growing body of indenpents and party members feeling disenfranchised reflect this viewpoint. I live in a state where 45% of the voters are independents. Most are former republicans who feel Regan and the neo cons totally betrayed and destroyed the republican party, but they also have no love for the extreme socialists either.Most Americans want government from the center but the only choices they have provide government from the extreme.

I go for Social Welfare, free international markets but companies are subject to strict restrictions etc, but profits of 'capitalism' should be spread equally among all employees, wage gaps shouldn't be so high. I'm libertarian in many ways. I dunno.

Could it be that especially in America that we have been told that to be moderate is to mean we have no real convictions and so we take the extreme stances on all positions?
I'm not just talking about America.

Here in Europe, almost all the socialist parties are socially liberal, but many (not all) the economically liberal parties are sociall conservative.

I have a theory that people need something to control. For some it's the economy and for others it's people's personal lives.

Most Americans want government from the center but the only choices they have provide government from the extreme.
I think that the differences between Democrats and Republicans, although greater than a few years ago, are way way exaggerated. I mean, it's not like the USA goes through a social upheaval every time the governing party changes.

I think that the differences between Democrats and Republicans, although greater than a few years ago, are way way exaggerated. I mean, it's not like the USA goes through a social upheaval every time the governing party changes.

Largely because the constitutional model works and both the Senate and the courts tend to be moderating. The courts sometimes goes off on a tear, but the Senate has not been radicalized since the days of Eugene McCarthy.