I've heard alot lately "Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative". I am guilty of saying this before, and it may not be totally acurate, but I feel that my statement is more accurate than others, as I'll explain later.
This is mostly inspired by hearing Mr. Harry Browne, former candidate for presidency for the Libertarian Party, speak at UT about the election and small government. I agree with his stance on moral liberties, but I disagree with the illegality and obsoleteness of many social programs.
Well, I heard that someone say that they were a libertarian because they were "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". I believe that this is a contradiction in terms, or people don't really understand how it works. To be socially liberal, I assume that you don't care what a person does with his/her own body, especially actions in general that don't harm others. But I think this also concerns charity, protection of minority and workers rights, assistance to the poor or the elderly.
Under fiscally conservative, I assume someone believes in a balanced budget, no budget defecits, and lower national debt.
Now, the only way to have certain organizations and programs is the government is by money and spending money on the programs. This is good. Balancing the budget is good. But the only way to have a balanced budget AND have a lot of social programs is to either 1. raise taxes 2. decrease or limit spending on programs. Most people aren't for either. They want their government programs, but they also want lower taxes. It doesn't make sense, it can't happen...or can it?
I think part of the problem is the conservative lies about the left. The left has never been for outrageous spending or debt, but that may be a price to pay for vital social programs, but it is not a requirement. The conservatives want you to think that the liberals have no controlled spending, but they do. The conservatives in order to get more votes, have abandoned their previous platform of small government (traditional conservative platform) and shifted to support of vastly popular social programs with minor (but damaging) changes. So now conservatives, trying to lower taxes but keep government programs, have escalated into a spiralling debt greater than we have ever seen.
The last leftish president Clinton had a balanced budget, or wait, a surplus (gasp!) and reduced the national debt. There was no change in substantive government programs. The conservatives however, maybe because they're now compassionate, have no longer tried to reduce government (a noble goal) but have decided to keep government the same, lower taxes, and increase military spending. This doesn't work.
So, there is no such thing as fiscal conservancy, and people who want to be fiscally conservative don't want to pay the price. Social liberalism and fiscal conservancy is a paradox, but doable with the proper leadership. We as a nation need to elevate civilization by reducing restrictions that do not harm others, and creating social programs to enhance the lives of others and balance the burden of living among us all.
If you don't agree, I'd like to hear different views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Is there any government social program that really works? I think what Harry Browne was trying to say was that many of these government programs to assist the needy don't work and perhaps we need to look at alternatives. You could privatize some of them. Anything run by government is grossly inefficient anyhow. Also, if we didn't have to pay so much for the cost of government, we'd have more money at our disposal and I think people would be more charitable. Granted, there are always those who wouldn't help others no matter how much money they have, but overall I think people want to help those in need if they can.
Also, if you have read much of Harry Browne's work, you'll know that at the heart of every government program is a gun. The government has the legal right to use force to accomplish its goals. We, as individuals cannot do that legally. It's no wonder every special interest group out there wants to use the government to further their cause.
You don't want your neighbor coming over to your house and holding a gun to your head to demand that you pay for his sister who has had her 4th child out of wedlock and can't even support herself, much less 4 kids. I've known women to purposely keep having kids they can't afford to raise because they get more money in welfare and child support than they would working a job. A lot of these women flat out don't want to work. They want to be taken care of, so they abuse the system which makes it difficult for some people who really do NEED the help. It's sad. It really is true that the stupid people are breeding in higher numbers. But maybe they aren't so stupid after all. They've figured out how to work the system to their advantage.
Well, this is a long enough comment as it is. Anyhow, if you haven't figured it out yet, I am a Libertarian. I don't agree with ALL of their views, but I agree with most. I think we need the government out of our pocketbooks and out of our private lives. You can't hardly name one thing you can do that is not regulated in some way by either Federal, State, County or local government in some way. I ran for state office back in 2002. That was an eye opening experience. I learned just how corrupt our political system is and it's worse than most people think.
Post a Comment