NationStates Jolt Archive

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?

I don't understand it either. It seems like they apply the "let it alone" attitude only towards business.

I don't know, but it should make for some fun debating.

*Runs into a corner*

I am not really sure. I am in full support of the free market, but I am to the left on the economic scale, and way to the left of the social scale.

I think a lot of it has to do with paranoia. They feel overly needy to protect their own stuff. I also don't think that they quite understand the economics behind it.

It would actually be more consistant probably to be socially libertarian, from a free market perspective, as it would decrease government intervention, and on some issues, encourage business.

One such issue is prostitution. I have no idea why any capitalist would want prostitution to be illegal. It is a business, after all.

I think a lot of it has to do with paranoia. They feel overly needy to protect their own stuff. I also don't think that they quite understand the economics behind it.

Beat me to it.

When it comes to profit, as much and as quickly as possible seems to be their policy, regardless of other issues.

But when it comes to home...I really don't understand why they don't help us out there...

It would actually be more consistant probably to be socially libertarian, from a free market perspective, as it would decrease government intervention, and on some issues, encourage business.

One such issue is prostitution. I have no idea why any capitalist would want prostitution to be illegal. It is a business, after all.
Yeah same with drugs. If all drugs were legalised, the boost to the global economy would be unbelievable!

I don't know, but it should make for some fun debating.
You! Conservative! Come back here. You should be answering this question.

It's more of the fact that economic libertarians were forced into an odd position to ally themselves with social conservatives at one point in time, mainly because they were against economic authoritarians, who also held views in the social arena that were contradictory to the social authoritarians. And as such, the economic libertarians signed up with the social authoritarians, and slowly began to adopt their beliefs, but not all have, there are still a goodly number of economic/social libertarians out there (me!) so, it's not all grim.

Beat me to it.

When it comes to profit, as much and as quickly as possible seems to be their policy, regardless of other issues.

But when it comes to home...I really don't understand why they don't help us out there...

Paranoia again. Generally all of the things that conservatives want to prohibit are things that they are self-conscious of and don't take part in. Actually, it all pretty much revolves around sex.

Yeah same with drugs. If all drugs were legalised, the boost to the global economy would be unbelievable!


You! Conservative! Come back here. You should be answering this question.

*Gets lasso thrown around neck by Swimmingpool, gets dragged back*

I'm back. I'll try to answer it.

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?


Wow good topic, I cant understand that either, since i consider myself fisically "conservative" but very liberal on moral issues.

Makes it tough to vote for someone you want. For example, I want to vote for the conservatives here in canada as I dislike some of the left wing ideas brought forward by our government like a national day care system but hwo in the fuck can i vote for someone who goes on and on about gay marriage!! Who gives a fuck if they want to get married? How does it effect you in any form?

Paranoia again. Generally all of the things that conservatives want to prohibit are things that they are self-conscious of and don't take part in. Actually, it all pretty much revolves around sex.
I don't really buy this one. I am fairly restrained. I've never had sex or done any hard drugs. Yet I think people should be allowed to do these things.

You see there is a difference between a libertine and a libertarian.

Wow good topic, I cant understand that either, since i consider myself fisically "conservative" but very liberal on moral issues.

Makes it tough to vote for someone you want. For example, I want to vote for the conservatives here in canada as I dislike some of the left wing ideas brought forward by our government like a national day care system but hwo in the fuck can i vote for someone who goes on and on about gay marriage!! Who gives a fuck if they want to get married? How does it effect you in any form?
It all depends on how you weight certain issues I voted for Bush, but against Ohio's gay marriage amendment, so, you just have to value each issues importance.

I don't really buy this one. I am fairly restrained. I've never had sex or done any hard drugs. Yet I think people should be allowed to do these things.

You see there is a difference between a libertine and a libertarian.

It is the irresponsible aspect of the actions that they are paranoid of, not so much the actions themselves. They seem to believe that people should be disallowed from being irresponsible instead of given the opportunity.

It all depends on how you weight certain issues I voted for Bush, but against Ohio's gay marriage amendment, so, you just have to value each issues importance.


True, but if G W is against gay marriage dont you think he will bring some heat on any states or segments of the USA that wants to "legalize" gay marriage?

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?

I gotta call into question what you consider liberal economic policy ?

Tax reductions ?
Big military spending?
Pushes for SS reform (in the form of privtization)
cuts in agrilculture and education subsidies ?

stop me when i get warm...

Concervatives today are simply victims of cricumstance.. Concervatives are always more hawkish, and in a time in which security is the major concern there is no wonder concervatives would lean more authoritarian sacrificing liberty for security

True, but if G W is against gay marriage dont you think he will bring some heat on any states or segments of the USA that wants to "legalize" gay marriage?
Not really, as
a.) There's no way a gay marriage amendment could pass the Senate.
b.) The states that would legalize gay marriage are the one's Bush has the least political clout in.

Not really, as
a.) There's no way a gay marriage amendment could pass the Senate.
b.) The states that would legalize gay marriage are the one's Bush has the least political clout in.


HE would not pass a law ( or push one anyways) that repeals the states power to marry same sex outside of that single state?

I gotta call into question what you consider liberal economic policy ?

Tax reductions ?
Big military spending?
Pushes for SS reform (in the form of privtization)
cuts in agrilculture and education subsidies ?

stop me when i get warm...

Concervatives today are simply victims of cricumstance.. Concervatives are always more hawkish, and in a time in which security is the major concern there is no wonder concervatives would lean more authoritarian sacrificing liberty for security
Liberal economic policy (I can understand how this sounds confusing if you're American) is just about deregulating the economy and reducing government intervention therein. Meaning, capitalists are economic liberals, whereas socialists are economic authoritarians.

For your list:

Tax reductions yes
Big military spending? probably no, due to the fact that this is government spending that requires taxes to be levied
Pushes for SS reform (in the form of privtization) yes
cuts in agrilculture and education subsidies yes

Of course it is not necessary to have all of these to qualify as "economically liberal".

Personally I am for a free-market, or Eurpean socialism, and am socially libertarian. I am in the lower left squadron though.( I favor anarcho-socialism but find it too idealistic). Bush is very hawkish and doesn't have good insight into economics. IMO

HE would not pass a law ( or push one anyways) that repeals the states power to marry same sex outside of that single state?
I'm kind of confused by the wording of the question, so if my answer sucks, let me know.

I think he'd try to pressure a state to not make gay marriage legal, but the states that are more likely to do so, are least likely to listen to Bush, espescially if a referendum is involved.

Liberal economic policy (I can understand how this sounds confusing if you're American) is just about deregulating the economy and reducing government intervention therein. Meaning, capitalists are economic liberals, whereas socialists are economic authoritarians.

For your list:

Tax reductions yes
Big military spending? probably no, due to the fact that this is government spending that requires taxes to be levied
Pushes for SS reform (in the form of privtization) yes
cuts in agrilculture and education subsidies yes

Of course it is not necessary to have all of these to qualify as "economically liberal".

well that would do it then.. on an american political scale he is pretty concervative at the end of the day (government deregulation = concervative economics)

Personally I am for a free-market, or Eurpean socialism, and am socially libertarian. I am in the lower left squadron though.( I favor anarcho-socialism but find it too idealistic). Bush is very hawkish and doesn't have good insight into economics. IMO
Ah so like most of we Europeans you are a social democrat, in that you favour fairly liberal social laws combined with a regulated market economy + welfare state.

i would guess that it has less to do with caring about free markets in any real sense, and more about a desire for elite rule and well defined social hierarchies. since capitalism provides for the existence of something like this - especially once the elite use their wealth as a means to gain political power and hold on to both - it seems to them to be a good stand in for now. though they'd really like either an old school aristocracy or a theocracy. but they'll take what they can get for the moment.

I'm kind of confused by the wording of the question, so if my answer sucks, let me know.

I think he'd try to pressure a state to not make gay marriage legal, but the states that are more likely to do so, are least likely to listen to Bush, espescially if a referendum is involved.

Well i meant does the federal government have any power to make a " national No gays can marry law" So for example, if you get married in vermont, your gay marrage will not be legal outside of vermont at the federal level?


Im a little loopy on cold pills so i may be hard to understand, lol ;)

Well i meant does the federal government have any power to make a " national No gays can marry law" So for example, if you get married in vermont, your gay marrage will not be legal outside of vermont at the federal level?


Im a little loopy on cold pills so i may be hard to understand, lol ;)
Well, that law is already in place, and Kerry didn't say anything about getting rid of it, so , I chose the lesser of two evils on the issue, as I don't believe that Bush can get a national Constitutional Amendment through, that also wasn't a concern.

Does anyone remember the Dixiecrats/Souther Democrats?

It really comes down to the fact that a certain group of people want to dominate. They'll join and warp any group they can to get that power.

Getting the largess of the population under your banner, with religious tools, means nobody questions your position in power.

It's just another attempt at aristocracy that's plagued this and every other nation.

The majority of the population are under the Republicrat banner. The Republicans are more for theocracy and the Democrats more for an aristocracy, altough both sides never admit it.

Wow good topic, I cant understand that either, since i consider myself fisically "conservative" but very liberal on moral issues.

Makes it tough to vote for someone you want. For example, I want to vote for the conservatives here in canada as I dislike some of the left wing ideas brought forward by our government like a national day care system but hwo in the fuck can i vote for someone who goes on and on about gay marriage!! Who gives a fuck if they want to get married? How does it effect you in any form?
same here; i am all for keeping the government's involvement in my life to the absolute minimum, both economically and socially. i'm a grown up, so i don't need a mommy or daddy telling me who i can go out with or how i can spend my allowance any more.

Social conservatives are not really economically liberal, in any sense. They're the truest economic conservatives, making sure those with money get to keep it, and turn it into more money. They're not as pro-business as they seem since they often favor policies that hinder entrepreneurship and emerging markets.

Any honest capitalist can tell you that the War on Drugs is a senseless, racist, waste of our money that does more harm than good to our citizens.
If legalized, a large number of people could legitimately build capital, but this interferes with the alcohol and tobacco lobbyists who stand to lose a great deal of business to emerging competition. The pharmaceutical suits aren't too thrilled either.

It doesn't make sense to allow the $4 billion dollars per year market to run rampant, existing only in a black or gray market.

Does this really sound like economic liberalism?

Social conservatives are not really economically liberal, in any sense. They're the truest economic conservatives, making sure those with money get to keep it, and turn it into more money.

precisely

precisely
Thanks, but the sentence you've chosen to isloate seems a bit more sensational than intended within the paragraph you're referencing.

I thought that was obvious. I think when a lot of people hear that I'm "pro-business", they think of corporate interest groups and seedy, overpaid attorneys.
I'm more pro-entrepreneur and small-business, which constitutes a vital portion of our nation's overall wealth, albeit more widely distributed on a smaller scale.

EDIT: The immigrant mentality hasn't been shaken in our family over several generations of US-born citizens. Whatever happened to respecting and favoring the man or woman who pull themselves up by their bootstrings? Why are we so dangerously focused on a small percentage of the population with astronomical wealth?
Is it a realistic worldview to base your political philosophy on?

-snip-
This free marketer is a social libertarian himself. Libertarian pride!

This free marketer is a social libertarian himself. Libertarian pride!
"Free Minds and Free Markets"
-Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com)

This free marketer is a social libertarian himself. Libertarian pride!
if only the American Libertarian Party weren't such an embarassment. i probably would be more comfortable refering to myself as libertarian if it weren't for the fact that "libertarian" has come to mean "gun-stroking objectivist psychopath" to most people. :P

if only the American Libertarian Party weren't such an embarassment. i probably would be more comfortable refering to myself as libertarian if it weren't for the fact that "libertarian" has come to mean "gun-stroking objectivist psychopath" to most people. :P
Then refer to yourself as a classical liberal.

Then refer to yourself as a classical liberal.
i usually do :). sadly, the term "liberal" is also becoming a cuss word in America. pretty much the only words that one can use to refer to an acceptable political orientation are:

religious
conservative
patriot
traditional
Right
really conservative

hell, it's getting to the point where if you refer to the remainders of a meal as "left overs" you will get piles of people shrieking that the liberal baby-eating gay Jew media has brainwashed you, and that you should really think of the children and make sure to refer to all your meal remnants as "RIGHT overs."

if only the American Libertarian Party weren't such an embarassment. i probably would be more comfortable refering to myself as libertarian if it weren't for the fact that "libertarian" has come to mean "gun-stroking objectivist psychopath" to most people. :P
As a card-carrying member of the LP, I resent that coming from you Bottle!
I thought you were our our platform hottie!
:fluffle:

What a goddamned shame. It sounds like your investing too much gravity in other people's opinions, not the actual political philosophy.

To be fair, Eichen, its the reality that matters, not the theory.

Conservatives are supposed to be conservative, rather than trying to screw with people.

Doesn't mean you should ignore that and vote for their party concept.

As a card-carrying member of the LP, I resent that coming from you Bottle!
I thought you were our our platform hottie!
:fluffle:

What a goddamned shame. It sounds like your investing too much gravity in other people's opinions, not the actual political philosophy.
actually, sort of the opposite; i will hold my particular political beliefs regardless of what they are called, by me or anybody else. the only purpose served by naming my beliefs is to communicate the gist of my political orientation to other people...if most other people think "liberal" means "soy-sipping acoustic-loving green thumbed Communist" then i shouldn't use the word "liberal" to refer to my beliefs because it will not accurately communicate what my beliefs are.

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?

I just think you have overlooked something here. The simple fact is that those who favor a "laissez-faire" economy do not grant what you term "social liberties" because these generally come at the cost of regulating business. For instance, minimum wage laws, underage employee laws, and affirmative action/quotas are all symptoms of "social liberties," and have a profound impact on business. Thus, the Democrats usually act in the interests of the common man, but at the expense of the economy. The only reason the Clinton administration changed this was because they approved outsourcing, which screwed the common guy out of jobs and let businesses make more money through cheaper labor. It's the age old dilemma. To improve the life of the common man, you must first start with the workplace. However, to improve the economy, you must relax regulations on businesses that increase production costs. The two are mutually exclusive by definition.

i usually do :). sadly, the term "liberal" is also becoming a cuss word in America. pretty much the only words that one can use to refer to an acceptable political orientation are:

religious
conservative
patriot
traditional
Right
really conservative

hell, it's getting to the point where if you refer to the remainders of a meal as "left overs" you will get piles of people shrieking that the liberal baby-eating gay Jew media has brainwashed you, and that you should really think of the children and make sure to refer to all your meal remnants as "RIGHT overs."

Now this is just stupid. I don't know where you live, but the liberals did have 49% of the popular vote. Just because the conservatives hold a small majority doesn't mean you can now scream about how the liberals are being overwhelmed by a fanatical majority of conservatives who threaten to shoot you for going to Woodstock.

It's all about where you live, and the particular group of people you are around. I know some groups where I am that almost physically attack me for being a Republican. They are, of course, countered by the slightly larger number of much less fantical Republicans who really aren't all that outspoken, and more or less find those loud-mouthed whiny liberals humourous.

actually, sort of the opposite; i will hold my particular political beliefs regardless of what they are called, by me or anybody else. the only purpose served by naming my beliefs is to communicate the gist of my political orientation to other people...if most other people think "liberal" means "soy-sipping acoustic-loving green thumbed Communist" then i shouldn't use the word "liberal" to refer to my beliefs because it will not accurately communicate what my beliefs are.
I really can't touch that, as we're in agreement. But I don't see what it really has to do with the actual LP platform. It sounded like you were bitching about a lame stereotype and using it as a reliable excuse to dismiss an entire political party.
Came off as hackery.

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?

In the same vein, I have trouble understanding the economic left's favoring social libertry but not economic.

The mainstream of political thought runs (in the set up of the political compass) bottom left to top right. It seems to me it should run upper right to lower left.

It's more of the fact that economic libertarians were forced into an odd position to ally themselves with social conservatives at one point in time, mainly because they were against economic authoritarians, who also held views in the social arena that were contradictory to the social authoritarians. And as such, the economic libertarians signed up with the social authoritarians, and slowly began to adopt their beliefs, but not all have, there are still a goodly number of economic/social libertarians out there (me!) so, it's not all grim.

Andaluciae has it. In America, the history of political parties is long and complicated, involving different parties breaking, forming, halving, changing, etc. etc. It's not like in Europe where if you have a different ideology you split off and form your own party - the U.S. is a two party government, not a multi-party government. So you have to pick sides. With or against.

If you want a detailed explanation of the evolution of party politics in the United States, I suggest going here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States).

And of course, at this point, if you want power in either party, you have to conform to their views. So that means perpetuating the cycle of the same old ideas recycled.

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?
My theory is this.

1.Free-Market types undestand that in order to keep their clout they must have a prepetual workforce ignorant enough to make them millions while they get paid a small penance. What better way to do this than to keep them under educated and worried more about gays marrying each other rather than how much that asshole in the suit is raping them in the pocket book.

2.Social liberties cause instabilities in the market place. Empowered people are more likely to think for themselves and do insane things like strike or hold a demonstration once they realize the corporate dick is inserted in their rectums. Inhibiting these freedoms allows for a more docile rape victem populous. ( the rape here is metaphoric of course) (or is it?)

3.I have a suggestion. While you do your research also find out who is more anal retentive. I know it will be hard too find data but i garuantee every one of those guys walks around like they have a corn cob stuck up their ass. People with corn cobs up their asses do not like seeing people who walk loose.

We were just talking about this in one of my classes a few days ago. It boils down to what is termed the "constrained" and "unconstrained" views of looking at people and the world.

In the constrained view, people are always going to be dishonest, immoral, selfish, etc. The point of government is to keep people from hurting each other. The economic point of view is that capitalism uses those selfish tendancies to build the economy and benefit everyone.

In the unconstrained view, people are basically good and only resort to wrong acts when forced to by circumstances. Government is used to help people get out of those circumstances. The economy needs to be controlled to keep greedy people from unfairly exploiting the honest, unsuspecting public.

That's why those views tend to go together. They both stem out of a common world-view.

Personally, I'm a member of the constrained view.

In the same vein, I have trouble understanding the economic left's favoring social libertry but not economic.

it stems either from the idea that certain actions of powerful economic entities have negative effects that are severe enough to require regulation (for the social democrats and other reformists), or over a disagreement about what economic liberty entails (for us revolutionaries - libertarian socialists/communists, mutualists, etc).

This was an issue that frustrated me as the President of a Reform riding association in Canada.

We had basically two groups in the party that were together as a marriage of convenience.

1) People who believed fundamentally in 'The Rights of Man' as fundamentally superior to 'The rights of Society'. This group was in favor of lower taxes, smaller government and social liberties.

2) Religious conservatives that were in favor or lower taxes, smaller government, and a Christian version of Sharia law.

(By my description of the latter you can probably guess I was in the first camp).

My personal believe is that the first group make up the vast majority of the members of all Conservatives organizations, and that this marriage of convenience allows 'Liberal Politicians' to convince large numbers of people who are in the first group to vote for them by fear-mongering the influence of the second group.

Many Conservative organisations are controlled by a minority of 'Group 2' people (EG the US republican party) because the buly pulpit in the US is well organised - and (almost by definition) the 'libertarian conservative' is an unorganised beast.

Many liberal organizations are typically made up of:

1) People who believed fundamentally in 'The Rights of Man' as fundamentally superior to 'The rights of Society'. This group was in favor of lower taxes, smaller government and social liberties.

2) People who have bought into the Socialist position and are interested in a nanny state and social liberties.

What's missing is a political party (in essentially every 'Western Democracy') that coherently and explicitly adopts the 'Libertarian Capitalist' approach - explicitly avowing both the 'Christian Sharia law' the 'nanny state' and pulls its vote from both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' parties.

Because political compass is a bad test that shouldn't be used as a basis for analysis of anything.

And at least some order is needed to have a successful market in a country.

What's missing is a political party (in essentially every 'Western Democracy') that coherently and explicitly adopts the 'Libertarian Capitalist' approach - explicitly avowing both the 'Christian Sharia law' the 'nanny state' and pulls its vote from both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' parties.
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

To improve the life of the common man, you must first start with the workplace. However, to improve the economy, you must relax regulations on businesses that increase production costs. The two are mutually exclusive by definition.
Just because things like minimum wage laws, underage employee laws, and affirmative action affect people doesn't mean they're not economic issues. By social issues I mean things like drugs, prostitution, sex and what have you. Surely liberalising drug laws would be complementary to capitalism.

And at least some order is needed to have a successful market in a country.
It's not as if social libertarians are anarchists though. How would abortion or gay marriage ever harm the economy? Indeed, legal prostitution and legalised drugs would improve the economy by increasing competition between businesses and opening new markets.

Social and economic libertarianism suit each other quite well, IMO.

I refer to my politcal position simply as "capitalist", since I am both a free-marketer and a free-society-er. To my mind, liberty is vital in all aspects of life.

In my opinion, a contract between an employer and an employee, or a company and another company, should be legally no different to the contract between a husband and wife, or a husband and husband, or a wife and wife, or 2 wives and a husband, or a husband and a hooker, or a drug dealer and a wife, and so on ad infinitum. In all cases, it's none of the government's business.

It's a shame about the various libertarian parties of the world, since here in Britain one doesn't exist to my knowledge, and in the states, their ideas about privatized military and police force are screwed up. Those are legitimate government functions as far as I can see. I wish there was a "capitalist party" of some description.

www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

Yes - the principles are right - but the marketing is SO bad! There is zero chance of anyone who can be effectively 'tagged' as a Libertarian getting elected.

It's not as if social libertarians are anarchists though. How would abortion or gay marriage ever harm the economy? Indeed, legal prostitution and legalised drugs would improve the economy by increasing competition between businesses and opening new markets.

Social and economic libertarianism suit each other quite well, IMO.
Legalizing drugs wouldn't necessarily lead to improving the economy, prostitution might (Both would open new markets - one would have detrimental side effects).

In my experience of compiling the NS Political Compass chart I noticed that there was a strong correlation between socialism and social libertarianism, and also a strong correlation between capitalism and social authoritarianism.

We also see this in real life politics. The current US President is socially conservative but economically liberal.

I don't understand. Why are conservatives strongly in favour of economic freedoms but slink back when pressed on granting social liberties?
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that America has polarized itself into two basic camps. There are many that are not in either main camp, but the majority are in one or the other. I think it's a sheep mentality myself. It's easier to follow a beaten path then to create one of your own.

Wow good topic, I cant understand that either, since i consider myself fisically "conservative" but very liberal on moral issues.

Makes it tough to vote for someone you want. For example, I want to vote for the conservatives here in canada as I dislike some of the left wing ideas brought forward by our government like a national day care system but hwo in the fuck can i vote for someone who goes on and on about gay marriage!! Who gives a fuck if they want to get married? How does it effect you in any form?
I thought there was a sort of libertarian party in Canada.

Liberal economic policy (I can understand how this sounds confusing if you're American) is just about deregulating the economy and reducing government intervention therein. Meaning, capitalists are economic liberals, whereas socialists are economic authoritarians.

For your list:

Tax reductions yes
Big military spending? probably no, due to the fact that this is government spending that requires taxes to be levied
Pushes for SS reform (in the form of privtization) yes
cuts in agrilculture and education subsidies yes

Of course it is not necessary to have all of these to qualify as "economically liberal".
I think you've got it backwards. Economic liberals tend towards socialistic policies (emphasis towards social programs). Classic coservative policies tend towards a smaller government. Neo-conservative policies (what we get from "conservatives" today) tend towards fascistic and theocratic policies (emphasis towards religious and military programs).

Yeah same with drugs. If all drugs were legalised, the boost to the global economy would be unbelievable!
As part of the normal markets, it would become lower risk, lower margin, eventually indistinguishable from today's pharma or food items as far as the money goes.

It's a pretty free market now (ie, little effective regulation, just an occasional interdiction), and enormous sums of money are tied up in it, not to mention the fortunes spent supposedly "fighting" the "war on drugs". It's imaginable that worldwide legalization would be neutral or even harmful to the world economy.

The reason why conservatives are usually laissez-faire/free-market it supports keeping the rich and those who are making the most profit in power. It is in keeping with the ideology in that it keeps the weak and the working classes down and big businesses powerful. In 18th Century France where the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" first came into practice, those on the left were populists who supported both social change and more power being given to the people as opposed to the aristocratic elite who resided on the right and wanted to maintain their power. When you have free-trade, it doesn't mean you have a free country, big businesses are merely given the liberty to do whatever they want. Free trade in essence is allowing the big businesses to operate amorally which imposing irrational, authoritarian moralistic values upon the working class.

I thought there was a sort of libertarian party in Canada.

There was, it voluntarily gave its assets to charity and disbanded to avoid being terminated as an official party for lack of electors.

They are currently trying to find 250 names they can submit to get recertified.

No, I didn't lose any zeroes...

Concerning the original question, I invented the term free marketeer (By the way, there is no apostrophy. I used that term because it sounds like the three musketeers.) and I'm as libertarian as it gets, I'm an anarchist. The essential philosophy of libetarianism, whether it be economic or social, is that people are smart enough to make their owm descisions. Neither conservatives nor liberals however take this belief to its full extent. I believe that is the true full meaning of "free marketeer."
Anarchists of the world unite!

It's imaginable that worldwide legalization would be neutral or even harmful to the world economy.
How? The illegal drugs trade is estimated to be worth $400 billion annually. How would this not be good if added to the legal economy?

How? The illegal drugs trade is estimated to be worth $400 billion annually. How would this not be good if added to the legal economy?

Work lost by people high on the job. If you think that accidents caused by alcohol are bad.....

i can only speak for myself,so heregoes.

i am economiclly authortarian because of the world i see,i care that everyone is happy and free to choose there own fate.everything else comes SECOND.
capitilism CAN be a great force of good.however the corporates empires that exist nowadays seek only to exploit people and improve themselves,bringing the top happiness at the expense of others.
when the corporates stop exploiting people,stop seeking monopoly,stop attempting to create wage slaves.THEN ill support more freedom for them.

freedom stops where another begins.

Work lost by people high on the job. If you think that accidents caused by alcohol are bad.....
But how common are they? I don't know of a lot of people drunk on the job. They would be fired. It's not a common problem, and definitely would never cost $400 billion annually.

Work lost by people high on the job. If you think that accidents caused by alcohol are bad.....

In addition to what Swimmingpool stated, medical scientist have ranked the debilitating effects of intoxication measured in the amount of personal/social damage a substance may cause. Alcohol receives the worst rating. On a scale from 1 to 6 (one being the worst) alchol received a 1, heroin received a 2, cocaine received a 3, marijuana received a 4, tobacco received either a 5 or 6 and caffeine received either a 5 or 6 (rated differently by different scientists).

A typical person who has consumed enough alcohol to be classified as intoxicated is simply more out of control than a typical person who is intoxicated on other substances.