NationStates Jolt Archive

i had a thought on the way back from the pub tonight.... bear with me....


why is it that economic liberalism seems to go hand in hand with social conservativism.... while social liberalism seems more associated with controlled economy policies?

i mean, even 'libertarians' (the economic ones) seem, in the large part, to be personally socially conservative even when they may follow the "live and let live" idea. and 'liberals' (the social ones) seem, in the large part, to favour controlled markets (or no 'market' at all).and the moderates seem to follow a similar pattern.

now i belong to the second group as defined here, the social liberal/non-market type really, althought i am becoming slightly more economically liberal if only for not seriously looking into alternative economic systems yet.

so i guess this is more a question of psychology rather than politics. what does NSG think? is there anything to this or am i seeing a pattern where there is none. is this a modern association or is it more deep-set.

I think that the 'economic liberalism' mindset is largely adopted by social conservatives because there is a sense of keeping your hard-earned money. Social conservatism lends itself towards people 'pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps', which is an anti-socialist mindset.

Liberals often tend to be more market-socialists, however, this isn't necessarily as much a given as the social conservative/economic liberal mix. Perhaps it is simply that liberals tend to adopt more progressive ideas as a matter of course, including traditionally 'progressive' economics.

because if you hold one silly idea odds are your gonna have another?

yes I made that specially so we don't need to have one of those libertarian debates again

why is it that economic liberalism seems to go hand in hand with social conservativism.... while social liberalism seems more associated with controlled economy policies?

Because you have a very warped, US-based perspective on things? We've several socially liberal parties that are economically liberal, just like we have socially conservative parties that are negative towards market economies. Your description of matters is alien.

seems to be a product of spending too much time on NSG then eh? oh well.

well the social conservative alliance to markets is because social conservatives are stupid. i mean, there is no sane explanation for it - the market is inherently opposed to social conservatism. because it turns out that sin and vice and abomination are quite profitable, and availability tends to make them more prevalent in the future.

as for social liberals trending the opposite way, that's because the market is an abject failure at delivering justice or creating egalitarian social relations (which are its few redeeming characteristics for ye olde conservatives, as far as i can tell). and since at least vaguely egalitarian social relations are fundamentally necessary for social liberty, the connection is obvious.

Because you have a very warped, US-based perspective on things?

So because he has a US-based perspective on things automatically means that his perspective is "warped?" I would just simply say that it is different from a European one. I would love to see your reaction to him calling a person's European perspective "warped."

I think that the 'economic liberalism' mindset is largely adopted by social conservatives because there is a sense of keeping your hard-earned money. Social conservatism lends itself towards people 'pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps', which is an anti-socialist mindset.
Good point. To put it bluntly, social conservatism and economic liberalism go hand-in-hand simply due to the "me, me, me" factor present in both movements. Both types of policies disfavor empathy and emphasize individualism over everythinge else, so naturally, they often go together.

i just thought of a really obvious exception in the UK - the Liberal Democrats are both economically and socially liberal. should really have remembered them seeing as everyone i know seems to vote for them.

When you get down to it, conservatives do adhere to their social conservatism, but they do not adhere particularly well to their economic liberalism. If you look at some of the major governments that have been formed by conservative parties, you won't find much adherence to economic liberalism.

There is a rhetorical emphasis on it, but the rhetoric does not match the reality.

Conversly, the "liberal's" are not really socially liberal. They may not emphasise "traditional values", but they do seek to impose values.

The "social liberalism" of the "liberal" parties seems confined solely to consensual sexual relations (and then only sparingly). In all other issues, they seek to impose a government solution.

I think that the 'economic liberalism' mindset is largely adopted by social conservatives because there is a sense of keeping your hard-earned money. Social conservatism lends itself towards people 'pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps', which is an anti-socialist mindset.

Liberals often tend to be more market-socialists, however, this isn't necessarily as much a given as the social conservative/economic liberal mix. Perhaps it is simply that liberals tend to adopt more progressive ideas as a matter of course, including traditionally 'progressive' economics.

well the social conservative alliance to markets is because social conservatives are stupid. i mean, there is no sane explanation for it - the market is inherently opposed to social conservatism. because it turns out that sin and vice and abomination are quite profitable, and availability tends to make them more prevalent in the future.

as for social liberals trending the opposite way, that's because the market is an abject failure at delivering justice or creating egalitarian social relations (which are its few redeeming characteristics for ye olde conservatives, as far as i can tell). and since at least vaguely egalitarian social relations are fundamentally necessary for social liberty, the connection is obvious.

these seem to be good explanations for the pattern.

So because he has a US-based perspective on things automatically means that his perspective is "warped?" I would just simply say that it is different from a European one. I would love to see your reaction to him calling a person's European perspective "warped."

Location: edinburgh/jersey

Honey, learn to read. For him to have a US-based view - which this undoubtedly is - is very warped, indeed. Anyhoo, the US-based perspective on these matters is very warped; they call leftists "liberals" and denote their rightist parties with the colour red. It's bonkers.

Location: edinburgh/jersey

Honey, learn to read. For him to have a US-based view - which this undoubtedly is - is very warped, indeed.

Honey, I was careful never to say that you were European -- you should learn to read.

As for your second point: what the hell is so warped about having an American perspective on things? Politics are different in the US than they are in the rest of the world; similarly, I would wager that most Irish have an Irish perspective, Chinese have a Chinese perspective, etc. Isn't that just natural? Why the hell is the concept of having a political perspective based on your country's political atmosphere warped? Oh yeah, I forgot -- hating America is cool. My bad. Fuck the US all the way. You're cool. And just so alternative!

Honey, I was careful never to say that you were European -- you should learn to read.

As for your second point: what the hell is so warped about having an American perspective on things? Politics are different in the US than they are in the rest of the world; similarly, I would wager that most Irish have an Irish perspective, Chinese have a Chinese perspective, etc. Isn't that just natural? Why the hell is the concept of having a political perspective based on your country's political atmosphere warped? Oh yeah, I forgot -- hating America is cool. My bad. Fuck the US all the way. You're cool. And just so alternative!

you've missed something important here i think.

Honey, I was careful never to say that you were European -- you should learn to read.

Sweden's not in Europe :confused:

Sweden's not in Europe :confused:
Yes it is.

you've missed something important here i think.

It appears I did. My apologies. And the shoe fits even more. Splendid.

Yes it is.

I know it is read the quot...oh never mind this thread has become one of nobody understanding anybody

flying elephants farting beautiful trumpets!

Wow. Communication Breakdown.


No, I'm not supposed to be in the Zeppelin thread.

Honey, I was careful never to say that you were European -- you should learn to read.

What does that have to do with the price of hookers on the streets of Bangkok? He is a European. That's what you should have read. Oh, and by the way, Sweden is in Europe. I guess you didn't know that. Odd.

As for your second point: what the hell is so warped about having an American perspective on things?

I already told you: red (the colour of socialism) being the colour of the right (which are against socialism), "liberalism" (an economic philosophy favouring free markets) being considered leftist (which is more on the side of controlled markets) and so on.

If you hadn't noticed, most political symbols and categorisations are from Europe and in the US they are quite warped from what they originally were. Sucks for you, but the European perspective on this is the default one because it is our invention, silly as it may be, and all that differs from it is per definition deviant.

Politics are different in the US than they are in the rest of the world; similarly, I would wager that most Irish have an Irish perspective, Chinese have a Chinese perspective, etc. Isn't that just natural? Why the hell is the concept of having a political perspective based on your country's political atmosphere warped? Oh yeah, I forgot -- hating America is cool. My bad. Fuck the US all the way. You're cool. And just so alternative!

I don't hate the US to be cool. I hate it because it does detestable things.

I know it is read the quot...oh never mind this thread has become one of nobody understanding anybody

flying elephants farting beautiful trumpets!

it has indeed. always seems to happen when i'm around :confused:

The 'warped' political scene in the US can largely be blamed on the two-party system. With only two parties to present the political spectrum, it's easy to see why people get confused; the uneducated in particular.

The 'warped' political scene in the US can largely be blamed on the two-party system.

Which itself is abomination, IMO.

There is no logical reason for the connection, just historical ones (the old-skool UK tories and their free trade ideas and so on).

Today the "keeping your heard-earned money" thing is probably closest. It's a very "male", a very aggressive, RWA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) sort of "me against the world" mindset.

You'll also notice that social conservatives are very happy indeed to restrict the market for utterly pointless reasons like patriotism or nationalism (ie when it comes to protectionism) or just nostalgic conservatism.

More than anything many social liberals define themselves against conservatism, so rather than think carefully about what they believe in, they are content to oppose whatever the other side says is good. So a sort of groupthink appears that isn't necessarily based on facts (at least for most people anyways).

Personally, I would call myself a libertarian in that I am both for a free market and for a free society. But I see conservatives as a greater threat to that than socialists. If I were in the US, for example, I'd rather vote Democrat than Republican, because in the end all you get with the latter is this chimera that talks of freedom but in practice asks everyone to submit to the "nation" (and these days "god" as well). And say what you will, that is worse than having to pay for a unversal healthcare scheme.

it has indeed. always seems to happen when i'm around :confused:

:eek: surreal thread time!

Which itself is abomination, IMO.

I agree. It's a joke, and Canada's not much better in that department.

I agree. It's a joke, and Canada's not much better in that department.

You people have to realise how "first by the post" (or whatever it's called; I tend not to have the bestest memory at three in the morning, forgive me) really sucks. Proportionality in parliamentarianism is where it's at.

You people have to realise how "first by the post" (or whatever it's called; I tend not to have the bestest memory at three in the morning, forgive me) really sucks. Proportionality in parliamentarianism is where it's at.

First past, and yeah, that's my bag. They're trying to get a mixed-member proportional system up and running in Ontario, and all of the major Toronto papers are already slamming it.

Pisses. Me. Off.

But hopefully, the electorate will see the advantage of it when the referendum comes along.

ok folks this is just another example of politicians controling people by emotion. lets face it show me one other economic idea that has worked for centuries. ok so capitolism does tend to favor the greedy look at all of the other ideas and tell me that you would like to live under those systems. now as to your questions it is just a case of simple physics. you take two objects and spin them around on a central axis and they will tend to pull apart, heading toward the extream limits of their allowed movement. this works on humans because of the need to form groups and then control them through their natural conformist tendencies. this goes for all groups especially after a few generations, when these ideas form into rock hard belief structures. all economic structures will inherantly favor the wealthier sometimes greadier members of that perticular ideal. lets face it humans are still stupid, greedy, animals myself included and not a one of us will ever really fix that. for all of those out there who disagree, take everything you have and give it all away. if you can do that then you might have a chance of proving me wrong otherwise i am right. unfortunatly if it wasn't for those same greedy
in-duh-viduals nothing would ever get done.

-snip-

Cute name, "Schwule States". :)

well gay states was already taken so i had to use german

well gay states was already taken so i had to use german

German is much cooler in this respect (and most respects, actually) than English. I've been fond of "Schwulster" (I believe that's what SoWiBi said I should use, anyway) for some time now.

kool . though english is derived from german anyway. oh just a point the flag i use is also loosly based on the old german imperial flag with a more american color scheme

kool . though english is derived from german anyway.

But with 60% or so of its vocabulary being French, the relevance of that could be put into question, not to mention the veracity seeing as Germanic != German.

oh just a point the flag i use is also loosly based on the old german imperial flag with a more american color scheme

I'd have thought it was an Icelandic flag with a pride banner as a badge in the canton.

It's antagonism toward the Left, mostly.

The traditional power centers rarely support movements toward equality... and people who are, for whatever reason, supportive of traditional power centers tend to support a coalition of them against the Left.

Institutions like religion are almost always opposed to radical social change, for a wide array of reasons, and since "the nation" revered by nationalists is controlled by the state ruling in the interests of the rich and powerful, simple patriotism also works against the Left.

well i'll be d**** never even noticed that lol

well i'll be d**** never even noticed that lol

Iceland is OK, so it could've been worse. It could've been *shudder* Danish...

why is it that economic liberalism seems to go hand in hand with social conservativism.... while social liberalism seems more associated with controlled economy policies?


Because the radical pro-market "economic liberalism" typically espoused by the right-wing is mostly about preservation of the status-quo social and class structure, and is thus entirely consistant with general social conservatism. People of this end of the spectrum lament social programs designed to feed the single unemployed mother of 6 as "communism" while massive subsidies, bailouts and favorable legal environments (the whole "corporation" concept being the most egregious example, with intellectual "property" comming in a close second) in favor of business are defended through impossibly twisted logic to fit within the framework of the "anti"-government "free" market. Well, assuming such pro-business machinations of the state are even acknowledged to exist at all. No matter how many campaign donations are pointed out or how often one notes the number of the corporate community members who also hold political office or close association there to, some will continue to insist upon some absurd fantasy that capital and the state are natural enemies.

It's silly.

But here's the tricky part; "social liberalism" is just the flip side of the same coin. Instead of engineering the violence of the state in favor of the corporate board of directors without any benefit whatsoever to anyone else, "social liberalism" aims to direct said violence in favor of the corporate board of directors while at least pretending to give a damn about that single mother of 6. The economic process is just as controlled as under "economic liberalism" (the only difference being that the social liberals don't lie through their rotten teeth about it...), while throwing the occasional social welfare bone to the oppressed masses in order to keep them quiet (whereas the economic liberals arel simply content to unleash law enforcement appocalypse upon any who dare think about even looking at a piece of land he or she doesn't personally own).

In short, the difference is thus: "economic liberals" keep you in line by putting a gun to your head or threatening to take your job. "social liberals" keep you in line by putting a gun to your head or throwing the occasional food stamp at you.


i mean, even 'libertarians' (the economic ones) seem, in the large part, to be personally socially conservative even when they may follow the "live and let live" idea.


But "libertarians" are just atheist Republicans (https://www.gop.com/Secure/Splash.aspx). Smoke and marry whom ever you wish, but unless you can show me the money your job is to die in a gutter.

If you realy want a headache (in a good way), try to make sense of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://www.mutualist.org/

"Free Market Anti-capitalism"

To the OP: You analyzed libertarian personal social conservatism well. I would include myself in this category (for any who have seen my statements on behalf of subsidiary institutions- family, church (or whatever religious edifice), and community.) I support these socially conservative institutions because I see them as arising from free action in order to serve various needs of the individual. I feel that to oppose these institutions, to be counter-culture, is to be destroying very useful devices that individuals have created over time, and thus is folly.

i had a thought on the way back from the pub tonight.... bear with me....


why is it that economic liberalism seems to go hand in hand with social conservativism.... while social liberalism seems more associated with controlled economy policies?

i mean, even 'libertarians' (the economic ones) seem, in the large part, to be personally socially conservative even when they may follow the "live and let live" idea. and 'liberals' (the social ones) seem, in the large part, to favour controlled markets (or no 'market' at all).and the moderates seem to follow a similar pattern.

now i belong to the second group as defined here, the social liberal/non-market type really, althought i am becoming slightly more economically liberal if only for not seriously looking into alternative economic systems yet.

so i guess this is more a question of psychology rather than politics. what does NSG think? is there anything to this or am i seeing a pattern where there is none. is this a modern association or is it more deep-set.


Because through a series of shifts that occurred over the course of the 20th century, the Democratic Party shifted its voting base to no longer include religious fundamentalists, and the Republican Party since 1980, has been able to pick them up.

A politically-astute person transplanted from 1900 to today would be dumbfounded by the alliance between capital and religion that exists in the modern Republican Party; indeed, there is still a massive disconnect between the goals of both groups and the fact that religious Republican voters keep voting in free marketeers who then vote down the very things that their Republican voters would like: Sam Brownback, a legend for washing the feet of one of his assistants in the Christian community, had absolutely no problem campaigning against toughening restrictions on the MPAA code in 2000-2001 despite the fact that the group he appeals to for votes is the group that was supporting the measure. This is an almost complete departure from the last Kansas farmboy to rise to national prominance: William Jennings Bryan was generally considered by the industrial capitalists of the day as a hop, skip, and a jump from pure militant anarchism.

The reason why these people nonetheless continue to vote in people who vote against their cultural and fiduciary interests is because of a series of factors, in some cases dependent upon region. The rise of labor power in the 1930's and 40's and their attachment to the Democratic Party made the Party more urban at the expense of rural, disorganized farmers who once formed the backbone of the party. The civil-rights campaign in the South in the 60's alienated southern evangelicals. This alienation was only exacerbated by the flirtation of the left with socialism, followed by post-modern response to it, from the intelligentsia within the party.

In each case, it's been the Republican Party that has benefitted from these cleavages. Once the Dems started ignoring the rurals in favor of urban and suburban voters, the Republicans picked them up by adopting planks that are tailor-made to exploit divisions between urban and rural voters. To pick one example, gun-control is anathema to rural voters, because after all, they can't rely on the police to be there in five minutes, and they also use those guns often to hunt with; urban areas, by contrast, have a habit of turning into war zones without 1) strong infrastructure, infrastructure which systematically left the inner cities in the 60's along with fleeing whites to the suburbs, and 2) unlimited access to firearms. The Republicans in the South continue to exploit lingering resentment over civil rights legislation, and Republicans just about everywhere have succeeded in the past generation of equating Democrat with Communist. The net consequence of all of these things is that fundamentalists, who are overwhelmingly rural and suburban, Southern, and anti-communist have found a natural home in a Republican Party that accomodates all those material factions quite nicely.

Actually, at uni today I remembered an actual argument that connects the two. I believe some of the early Austrian economists (being at their heart very conservative, traditionalist and usually catholic men) used it, and probably a few of the old Tories in Britain as well.

Paleoconservatives were against the French revolution. Why? Because it was basically an experiment, thought of by humans and put in practice by humans. It was a planned action to overthrow the king and put in place a republic of sorts in which everyone was equal and so on.

Paleoconservatives don't think that humans are smart enough to make societies. They reckon societies are either made by god or by history and are so complex that we can't understand them and we sure as hell can't improve on them (notice the similarity to the free-market argument against state intervention). I suppose ultimately the French revolution ended in a bloodbath, so they would have been feeling pretty smug about their theory...

In that view, traditions are actually excellent rules of behaviour that make society function properly, and violating these rules is putting your own individual hubris above the established 'best practice', as it were. So if you want gay marriage, then that's not only against god, but it is against tradition and therefore a very man-made idea that violates society and exposes us to dangers unknown.

So if you're such a paleoconservative, who thinks that both the market and society as a whole (if indeed you even make that distinction) are almost organic, incredibly complex structures that we don't have the means to ever understand, then it might make sense to both keep your hands out of the economy, and to respect traditions and don't try to meddle with them.

lets face it show me one other economic idea that has worked for centuries. Feudalism worked for centuries.