Ask a Libertarian: "What do you think about fiscal conservatives who are also social conservatives?" #3

Welcome to Ask a Libertarian with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America. 

Go to http://declaration2011.com to purchase, read reviews, find event dates, and more.

On June 15, 2011 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. In this episode, they answer the question:

"What do you think about fiscal conservatives who are also social conservatives?" (p.s. It is not an oxymoron.)

This is number 3 in the series. For the complete series, go tohttp://reason.com/archives/2011/06/10/ask-a-libertarian and Reason.tv's YouTube Channel at http://youtube.com/reasontv

Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, with help from Katie Hooks, Kyle Blaine, and Jack Gillespie.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Social conservativism tends to be expensive, what with the war on drugs and such.

[Spiny Norman]

Social conservatives also have a leave-us-alone component -- the home-schooling movement, for example. Libertarians can and should be supportive of that aspect of social conservatism.

[JW]

Libertarians can and should be supportive of that aspect of social conservatism.

Especially the ones that seek to codify their cultural and sexual mores to the entire population, right?

If they were the leave-us-alone types, they wouldn't be so-cons.

[SugarFree]

They are "leave-us-alone" types, but they never committed to "leave-you-alone."

[jacob]

+1

[Aelhues]

I have no problem with it being legal for you to have sex with someone of the same sex, or destroy yourself with heroin. I find both things fairly abhorrent, and enjoy my freedom to say so. I don't however, think it's the governments role to enforce my standards on you, even if I think my standards are right.

[SugarFree]

Which is a fine a proper stance to take. But you are a regretfully small sub-set of self-identified so-cons.

[sarcasmic]

"But you are a regretfully small sub-set of self-identified so-cons."

Maybe because once someone self-identifies themselves as a so-con they are assumed to be someone who wants to legislate their conservative morality, and rather than set themselves up to defend something that they do not support, they simply keep their mouth shut.

[JD]

I'm not sure the subset of so-cons who don't want to legislate morality is so small. I am sure that the subset of so-con politicians who believe so is vanishingly small.

[Spiny Norman]

Let me draw your attention to the words "...that aspect of..."

[JW]

I'm sorry, but it's hard to hear that aspect above all the moralizing and prosthelytizing, escpecially about Teh Gheys. Signal-to-noise ratio and all.

[SugarFree]

Are there anti-homeschooling libertarians?

[Spiny Norman]

Not that I know of. That was really my point -- that there is some common ground on specific issues.

[SugarFree]

OK, that makes sense.

[Aelhues]

I am a soc-con, unless by soc-con you mean government mandated behavior. I don't buy into the idea that you can't legislate morality, because even laws against murder are morale laws, however, when in doubt, err on the side of less law/regulation. With that said, I'm absolutely a leave me alone type, and despite my abnormally strict morals, I don't have a problem with self-destructive behavior, not being legislated.

[Ken Shultz]

Some things are both moral and legal questions. Murder is one of those. It's both immoral and should be illegal.

But just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Even social conservatives will generally agree that although cheating on your spouse is unethical, it probably shouldn't land you in jail.

Fraud and perjury are also crimes--but then lying to your mother is unethical too. And yet who would throw somebody in jail for lying to their mother about some trivial matter?

Point is--most crimes are unethical. But just because something's unethical doesn't necessarily mean society should get to call the police every times somebody does something unethical.

The question is where you draw the line--even for social conservatives.

We libertarians have a fairly consistent idea about where that line should be drawn. Social conservatives seem to draw that line all willy-nilly--but neither of us really thinks that something should be illegal just because it's immoral.

Why pretend there's a bigger distinction than there is?

[sarcasmic]

"Even social conservatives will generally agree that although cheating on your spouse is unethical, it probably shouldn't land you in jail."

What about murdering your spouse for cheating on you.
Should that land you in jail?

[Ken Shultz]

I can't help but wonder that you may be suggesting that because cheating on one's spouse may cause him or her to murder you, that cheating on your spouse should land you in jail?

So, just to nip it in the bud, yeah, I think people should control themselves and refrain from murdering their spouses--even if they were unfaithful.

[Aelhues]

Absolutely, as soon as you get past the point of legislating against moral/legal issues that clearly negatively impact others, the line becomes increasingly blurry. I agree that libertarians are fairly consistent, but even at the don't harm others point, the line is blurry. Which is why we are currently having struggles with things such as sexual harassment, and why so many civil suites award crazy amounts to people who were wronged by some entity, usually due to their own stupidity, inflexibility, or over developed ability to take offense.

There are no absolutes here, and the level of government intervention into morals, needs to be reevaluated often. However, I think the difference is that just like being fiscally conservative pushes for small government, when it comes to drawing the line, we should err on the side of less onerous law, and less government involvement. Where the normal social con tends to err on the side of more government control, and there-in lies the inconsistency.

[Ken Shultz]

"Where the normal social con tends to err on the side of more government control, and there-in lies the inconsistency."

Exactly. And people become calcified in their positions.

It's hard for me to say I'm in favor of free speech but I'm against pornography--for some reason!

It should be natural. Just because I'm in favor of free speech doesn't mean I like what everybody says! I think what pornographers do is unethical.

Social Conservatives tend to look at it the other way around--but it's also hard for them too to say that although they're against pornography, they're in favor of free speech.

The gravity on those issues pulls us to the extremes, but we have way more in common than most of us realize. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of social conservatives believe in the First Amendment--and the overwhelming majority of civil libertarians hear people say things that they don't like.

[me/dwc]

No, the line is not very blurry. For those committed to the blurriness of the line - join your compadres on the left who think that hurting someone's feelings or making someone feel inferior or using "discriminatory" language is justification for government intervention.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't think he's necessarily talking about government intervention.

Once again, just because I don't want the government to intervene doesn't mean I have to pretend that harmful behavior is perfectly alright.

Just because I think marijuana should be legal doesn't mean I have to pretend that people who squander their lives stoned and playing console games aren't a bunch of losers.

[jacob]

I think this was a nice diplomatic response from Nick and Matt.

Mitch Daniels was right. We need to call a truce on social issues. This must work both ways. It would be nice if we libertarians could simultaneously agree with the SoCons to look past issues like homosexuality. I don't ever see this happening. Over at Free Repugnant, the SoCons are livid about Ron Paul's vote to repeal DADT. Similarly, check out any number of Palin/Bachman/TP threads here, and see how the commentariat feels about the right's stance on gay marriage.

Sad...

[sarcasmic]

Not all social conservatives feel the need to use legislation to impose their values upon everyone else.

[Billy]

My philosophy of life is social conservatism.

My philosophy of government is libertarianism.

I don't think I'm all that unusual (though probably most in my position are not that vocal).

If instead of trying to codify our conflicting ideas concerning marriage/sexuality into law we restructured the law to recognize that it isn't any of the states' business who you claim to be married to or who you have sex with, we'd all be much better off.

The main barrier to this is the fact that the state claims to need information concerning who is married to whom for (extremely fiscally unconservative) tax and entitlement reasons.

So if we can end the states' need for marriage records for tax/entitlement reasons (an extremely worthy goal for fiscal conservatives), a large portion of the social conflict disappears.

Have whatever ceremony you want with whatever partner(s) you want in whatever institution will host it. Private individuals and organizations can recognize it or not as they see fit, and the state will ignore it entirely. Draw up private contracts/wills/powers of attorney to designate who will inherit when you die and who can make decisions on your behalf and under what circumstances.

[attention seeking homo]

How would I take those private individuals and organizations to court for not recognizing me?

I mean, it's just not faaaaaaaayer!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
They don't recognize me!
It makes me feel so inadequate!
Waaaaaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaa-aaah!

[Ken Shultz]

I don't know what side "attention seeking" is on?

...but whatever side he's on--I hope it's not on mine.

Sometimes I see people post stuff that's so pathetic, it seems like it must have been posted by some progressive posing as a conservative to try to make conservatives--fiscal or otherwise--look bad.

And this is a great example of that.

Posts like that make the undecided among us wish they were liberals.

[Danny]

To Libertarians, all potential allies on a single issue are equal ...

... but some are "more equal" than others.

There is no Democrat Ron Paul, and it's not because the Democratic Party is less receptive to Mavericks than the GOP. It's because most Libertarians are so itching for that capital gains tax cut they would sell every minority down the river for it.

[SugarFree]

Please don't feed the troll.

[Danny]

Why? Are you on a diet?

[rather]

Because he has a need to control others

[Urkobold?]

THE URKOBOLD TRANSLATES RATHER: "IF YOU DON'T READ MY BLOG, I'M GOING TO THROW A TANTRUM."

[Urkobold?]

THE URKOBOLD TRANSLATES: "I WAS BREASTFED UNTIL MY 21ST BIRTHDAY AND STILL CRAVE THE WARM COMFORT OF MY MOTHER'S BOSOMS."

[JW]

Bouncy?

[Otto]

No - because troll food isn't tax deductible, and that's all we care about.

[Otto]

Ah, what URKOBOLD? said.

[rather]

Just on que: sugarfree's merry Troop Of Masturbating Munchkins? ? ? coming to his defense

[Jim]

I'll always stick up for a fellow Kentuckian, even if I left that benighted land a long time ago. Give'em hell, SF!

List of Sugarfree's favorite foods (in no particular order):

Caramel apples
Cotton Candy
Hershey's syrup (straight out of the bottle, not mixed in anything)
Sno-cones
Sam's Club birthday cake

[rather]

that's a good apple-polisher

[SugarFree]

Don't you see, Jim? It's the intolerable tyranny of politely asking someone to do something and doing nothing against them if they refuse. I'm history's greatest monster.

[rather]

you a little bully-man who probably got his ass kicked in school everyday, and not you formed a little internet nerd gang to get even.

You are perpetually stuck in adolescence - I will never tell you to STFU; your infantine replay of your unsatisfactory adolescence entertains me

[Jim]

You know who ELSE asked people politely to do something, and then...oh wait, no he didn't, he used force.

/hitlerfail

[CE]

I find typically that they're not really fiscally conservative at all. They just want lower taxes, don't care about the deficit, and think outspending the rest of the world (combined) on military hardware is an appropriate response to scattered criminal activity.

[sarcasmic]

Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.
-Bastiat

Democrats fit the first, libertarians the second, and "fiscal conservatives" fit the third.

[Aelhues]

This really comes down to the simple fact that legislators need to do something. They have constituents and lobbyists come to them with problems, and they feel it is their role to fix those problems when in fact, in nearly every case, it's not. I suspect that most fiscal conservatives want to spend less, it is simply over ridden by the tidal wave force of being a do-gooder, and the media play (re-election) that it garners.

[R C Dean]

At the policy/legislative level, you make alliance with SoCons on issues where you both agree, and not on issues where you disagree. That should be easy enough.

At the electoral level, you have a binary choice: Does this candidate get my vote or not? SoCons fall on a spectrum, from quasi-theocrats to "the government should stop promoting immorality" types. The latter could get a libertarian vote, but you really have to look at the whole package.

A fairly typical SoCon package includes a hawkish foreign policy (bad), a vague opposition to the regulatory state (good), opposition to taxes (good), opposition to spending in the abstract, but not in the particular (sigh), and a mishmash of views on government intervention in social/cultural issues.

[Sudden]

RC, as usual, states it about as succinctly and accurately as possible.

[rather]

Why are libertarians 'do what I say not what I do' types?

Matt Welch's use of free French HC while he lives here in the US is a classic example of 'finding an out' while still proposing a libertarian philosophy.

[Aelhues]

Unfortunately, we all have to live in the real world. Some would say that it was hypocritical of me to use unemployment a few years back because I'm opposed to it. However, the reality is that I pay for that service, and it may be somewhat honorable for me to not accept the use of a program I am opposed to, it would also be stupid to suffer when I'm forced to spend my hard earned money on that program. It would be different if I could elect to not pay into all those programs.

[rather]

Unfortunately, we all have to live in the real world.

I don't think libertarianism could work in the real world

[Ken Shultz]

I think libertarianism is more pragmatic than the other options.

I think the idea that throwing millions of people in prison over the course of decades and squandering hundreds of billions of dollars over a course of decades--with no end in sight...

...all to try to stop people from using their favorite intoxicants?

That's trying to impose a fantasy world on the real world--libertarians are on the real world side of that argument.

I think when we're talking fiscal policy, the real world isn't the one where we can keep piling up deficits forever--without any economic consequences? That's living in a fantasy world.

Libertarians are on the real world side of that argument too.

[sarcasmic]

Libertarians accept human nature and the laws of economics, do not seek to use government to change that which cannot be changed.

The right tries to change human nature through legislative morality, and the left tries to change the basic laws of economics through government fiat.

Neither of those systems work in the real world, for they are trying to change the real world.

Libertarianism is the only system that accepts the real world and tries to operate within it.

[rather]

Yes, the republicans have a senseless war on drugs, a pharisaical morality, and the democrats have a brother's keeper absolutism.

Libertarianism will leave a 'no safety net' society, and businesses will collude against the consumer.
How will libertarianism be better?

[Ken Shultz]

"Libertarianism will leave a 'no safety net' society, and businesses will collude against the consumer. How will libertarianism be better?"

We had elderly people before 1929.

No really.

In countries where they don't have social security and medicare like we do? People assume responsibility for the well being of their parents the way we assume responsibility for our children.

The "social safety net" you're talking about may actually cause more of the exact same problems you're trying to avoid by having a "social safety net".

That having been said, I don't think doing away with Medicare and Social Security completely is what it means to be a libertarian.

Someone who wants more freedom in their lives--but just wants to means test Social Security and Medicare? Is a full-fledged libertarian in my book.

As far as businesses conspiring against the consumer--the only time I've seen businesses able to sustain something like that is in collusion with government. Businesses do sometimes use government regulation to entrench themselves--and that's an excellent argument for less regulation rather than more.

Conversely, businesses competing for customers is what's made our standard of living possible through the proliferation of choices.

So, anyway, that's how I see libertarianism making things better. I see people taking care of their parents the way they take care of their children sans the moral hazard Social Security and Medicare have introduced into our culture, and I see businesses having a much harder time using the government to collude against consumers.

[rather]

We had elderly people before 1929.

a commenter pointed out a few days ago that children in their forties could take care of their elderly parents in their sixties years ago but now you have children in their 60's taking care of their parents 80's and beyond. I can see where that is impractical.

In countries where they don't have social security and medicare like we do?

In some countries the culture dictates the care of parents and grandparents as a traditional family responsibility but that era is long gone from here.

Historically, businesses have colluded against the consumer. Price-fixing is commonplace. Without government regulation, I expect it would be out of control. Yes, a small business might try to break into a market with lower pricing but big-business will buy-out the upstarts that hurt their profit, or target their business by opening a competing franchise at a loss till they bankrupt their competition.

I just think this idea of non-compelling business, and even people is a pretty dream

[Andrew S.]

Social conservatives cannot be fiscal conservatives by the very definition of the latter. The social conservative agenda is far too expensive to possibly be congruent with being a fiscal conservative.

[Michael]

Who was it that recently made a public statement about how one couldn't possibly be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative as well? That would have been a hoot were it not so patently offensive.

[NoVAHockey]

Jim DeMint

[free2booze]

This is because SoCons incorrectly view government as the solution to social issues, instead of the cause.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't buy that government is the cause of ALL social issues.

Some social issues are lapses in ethics. The solutions are ethical--but how does the government teach people to work for a living?

The government can teach them not to work for a living, but I don't see how the government solves ethical problems like that.

That's part of my beef with social conservatives. They use the government as a cop out. The government is ultimately ineffective at enforcing morality.

Once we stop squandering effort and resources on government solutions to ethical problems that don't work--or worse are counterproductive. ...maybe people who care can start directing their efforts to strategies that can and do work.

[free2booze]

I don't argue with your point of view Ken. I guess I should rephrase my point.

In the context of social, political issues, the government causes problems.

Thomas Sowell has written extensively, as to how civil rights legislation has led to increased poverty, and out of wed-lock births in the black community.

Gary Becker has written about the effects that entitlement programs have on the structure of the family. Prior to the enactment of these programs, it was in the best interest of parents to ensure that their children had the necessary skills to earn a living. They did this, because they understood that they would need to depend of their children for old age support.

The issue over school prayer, has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, and everything to do with the governments monopoly on education. If parents could pick a school for their kids, based on the values most important to them, nothing would ever be imposed on anyone.

[sarcasmic]

"This is because SoCons incorrectly view government as the solution to social issues, instead of the cause."

I don't think that so-cons have the monopoly on viewing government as the solution, not the cause.

That's just politics in general.

People who call themselves "lawmakers" feel it is their duty to make laws.

That their work could have unintended consequences that warrant repealing laws instead of creating new ones is a thought that never enters into the mind of a "lawmaker", regardless of political persuasion.

Libertarians as a general rule do not seek to have power over other people. Because of this libertarians are unlikely to seek positions of power. If they do end up in positions of power, they will not get much cooperation from "lawmakers" in repealing crappy legislation.

Power seekers who call themselves libertarians should be viewed with suspicion.

[Ken Shultz]

I think it's important to mention that just because libertarians would rather have fewer laws governing social behavior, that doesn't mean we don't care about ethics.

We'd rather lean on ethics more and laws that supposedly enforce ethics less, so, actually, ethics are probably more important for libertarians than for other people.

It should also be said that standing up for my own right to free speech, for instance--doesn't mean I won't condemn unethical behavior.

Just because I don't want my right to free speech infringed on, that doesn't mean I don't think the people who protest military funerals are morally bankrupt. They are!

I can stand up for my right to free speech--and still think that pornographers should be ashamed of themselves.

Everybody who wants more freedom in their lives should feel welcome to call themselves libertarians. But being a libertarian doesn't mean I give up my right to condemn unethical behavior.

Why would leave that area of the battlefield for the social conservatives?

[Sudden]

Another point I'd piggy back on that is that in order to for a choice to be ultimately virtuous, it must be freely arrived at rather than made only in order to avoid punishment. Choosing the right thing (for example, in the world of a social con, not having premarital sex/committing adultery/viewing pornography) would have to be an actual choice influenced only by one's moral compass rather than a fear of legal punishment in order for the underlying will behind it to be truly consistent with virtue.

Now, this has a bit of a slippery slope to it for SoCons though, because in many cases, those who profess to act righteous in the name of God may very well be doing so because of fear of Hell/damnation or for admittance to Heaven rather than a genuine "this is what is right" attitude.

[Aelhues]

I agree completely. Additionally, as far as social programs, helping others by creating tax funded programs in effect abdicates our responsibilities to our neighbor, isolates us from many around us, and gives us strong incentive to not, through aiding others, be blessed by the process.

[Ken Shultz]

I was just saying the same kind of thing to Free2Booze up top there.

...just not so succinctly! I need to work on that.

[anon]

I think the actual problem is the juxtaposition of the terms liberal and conservative. It's a shame that we, as a country, would let collectivists steal the word "liberal" out of the movement since a real liberal would have the smallest government possible.

[MlR]

There's also distinctions to made at the federal and lower levels of government. At the risk of saying the obvious, federalism is a key philosophy that can increase the amount of joint political action at the federal level. You can get a lot of things out the federal government's purview while still expecting to fight it out at lower levels at a later date.

Granted, most people don't follow politics closely enough to make such subtle distinctions. And many people can't get over their cultural and personal hangups to work even tactically with those they find odious for whatever reason.

Yeah, we're almost certainly still fucked.

[free2booze]

The distinction between social and fiscal conservatism, is why conservatism as a whole, fails.

Barry Goldwater, and later Ronald Reagan, did not distinguish between Social, and Fiscal issues. They deemed that the problems in both of these spheres originated from the same source - to much government.

The debate over school prayer would have never happened, if the government didn't have a monopoly on education. If it weren't for social welfare, and entitlement programs, we would have stronger families, because out of necessity, parents would invest more heavily in the development of their children.

[me/dwc]

Of course, there is the presumption that people using pain killers to feel good is a terrible thing that must be stopped. That is precisely the puritanical idea behind alcohol prohibition. This horseshit about being concerned about people's welfare, becoming "addicts" and so on, is just that. Having undergone 4 major spinal surgeries I have had much experience with pain issue and issues with treatment as have used mountains of pain killers from time to time.

Two things - first, I have never gotten high from these compounds and have never felt any motivation to ingest them for any purpose except to deal with pain and to be able to function. Second - Yeah, some of the drugs can be difficult to stop taking because of withdrawal effects, but this is true of many, many drugs including anti-depressants. The absolutely worst thing experience I ever had with drugs involved stopping taking Effexor. Horrendous and frightening and far worse than quitting any of the pain killers I have used.

Incidentall, in the discussion over modern art a while back, someone was baffled that people who endorsed such a non-intuitive philosophy as libertarianism where such philistines when it came to art. I insisted that libertarianism is completely intuitive/natural and this person thought that was ridiculous. Okay, if self ownership is not completely intuitive I don't what is and self owner is the very basis of libertarianism. Seems like an obvious argument and fairly irrefutable.

[JoshINHB]

Okay, if self ownership is not completely intuitive I don't what is...

Having Mommy and Daddy take care of you is more intuitive for many / most people.

[GILMORE]

My personal libertoid answer to:

""What do you think about fiscal conservatives who are also social conservatives?"

I generally don't, because its none of my fucking business what their personal social mores are.

As long as they agree with me that Government is too large, too expensive, and needs to bled and hamstrung and beaten back into its rightful place... hey, they can differ on Gay rights and drug legalization and How Much Jesus is Enough Jesus all they want. Insofar as their social conservatism isn't something they also intend to impose on everyone around them by Force of Law, then who @*#$& cares. It's their perogative.

[sarcasmic]

Bleeding doesn't work. If they can't collect what they are going to spend through taxation, they'll borrow it.
Hamstringing doesn't work. The judiciary does not judge legislation against the Constitution, it defends it from those who challenge it.
It can't be beaten back. That will get you killed.

We're fucked.