What does that mean exactly?

Here's what I can tell:

"I'm a fiscal conservative who supports same-sex marriage and the availability of abortion and birth control."

That's it. Maybe decriminilization of pot. Maybe. So that's all it means. "Social progressivism," particularly in terms of fiscal conservatism, isn't that PROGRESSIVE.

Anyway, are there any other "socially progressive" ideas that fit in with fiscal conservatism?

Cause I'm socially progressive, and I'd like to see public preschools...but that's not fiscally conservative...see where I'm going with this, guys?

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 6:40 PM. Reason : sss]

9/21/2006 6:37:16 PM

Progressive = "not Conservative", I think. In politics, I don't think it actually has a positive definition of its own.

9/21/2006 6:55:32 PM

abortion/same-sex marraige/birth control

decriminalization of pot

anti-censorship





if this isn't Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll I don't know what else is

9/21/2006 7:00:45 PM

Think of it as it relates to Freedom.

Fiscal Conservative:
I want the financial freedom to keep and do as I wish with the money I earn. Spend it on my family instead of having it taken away and spent on someone else. I want the gov't to take as little money from me as possible and spend it only on the things permitted by the Constitution.

Social Progressive:
I want the freedom to live my life as I see fit. As long as I am not initiating fraud or force, the gov't has no authority to control my actions. My body belongs to me, it is not the property of any politician.

Both concepts try to achieve the same thing.. Freedom and Personal Responsibility.

9/21/2006 8:15:01 PM

for once, me and EarthDogg agree. Uncle Sam, give me my money and mind your own business.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ?]

9/21/2006 8:19:09 PM

^^ word!

9/21/2006 8:37:59 PM

And for the first time in TWW history a thread has been won with a post I think ~90% of the people can agree on. GG EarthDogg.

9/21/2006 8:47:32 PM

I'm fiscally conservative and socially progressive AND I think abortion is wrong

Oh shit!

9/21/2006 9:00:14 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Social Progressive: I want the freedom to live my life as I see fit. As long as I am not initiating fraud or force, the gov't has no authority to control my actions. My body belongs to me, it is not the property of any politician."

Except this isn't social progressivism.

Sounds more like Libertarianism. In fact, it sounds exactly like Libertarianism.

You may want to make social change towards Libertarianism...but that makes it your social progressivism.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 9:06 PM. Reason : sss]

9/21/2006 9:03:37 PM

i'm socially conservative


but i'm very much against legislating morality

9/21/2006 9:05:49 PM

Quote :

"Think of it as it relates to Freedom. Fiscal Conservative: I want the financial freedom to keep and do as I wish with the money I earn. Spend it on my family instead of having it taken away and spent on someone else. I want the gov't to take as little money from me as possible and spend it only on the things permitted by the Constitution. Social Progressive: I want the freedom to live my life as I see fit. As long as I am not initiating fraud or force, the gov't has no authority to control my actions. My body belongs to me, it is not the property of any politician. Both concepts try to achieve the same thing.. Freedom and Personal Responsibility."

Agreed.

9/21/2006 9:17:15 PM

Quote :

"'m fiscally conservative and socially progressive AND I think abortion is wrong Oh shit!"

I'm with you, and abortion is wrong- not good to kill or have it done to a woman, condoms are easy.

9/21/2006 9:18:21 PM

Fiscally conservative, socially progressive is pretty much a fancy way of saying libertarian.

Abortion should really be a left/right, liberal/conservative issue so much as it depends on where you define the beginning of human life.

^unplanned pregnancies happen. trust me.

actually, i think a solid majority of pregnancies are unplanned.

9/21/2006 9:21:29 PM

That great libertarian rag "Reason Magazine" has an appropriate sub-script: "Free Minds and Free Markets"

9/22/2006 12:16:07 AM

i want our markets to be as free as they can, and taxes to be put as low as they can. it is a crime against the american people, what these liberals do when they raise taxes on everything and everyone.

i want our children to have american and judeo-christian values instilled in them. if you want to teach your kid something else, go ahead. we need to get back to what we have traditionally stood for.

no more abortion, no more genocide of the unborn

no recognition of gay marriage. you dont need special rights.

we should always act in the interest of america, here and abroad.

in short, we need a solid Reagan Revolution to return this government to its conservative roots and prosperity.

Republican Reptiles, so to say, have their place in the government. We need their zeal for fiscal conservatism and American power abroad, especially right now in fighting terrorism. I wish they werent morally corrupt, but you cant win all the battles.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2006 12:42:12 AM

Quote :

"judeo-christian values instilled in them"

Yikes.

9/22/2006 1:13:55 AM

<---Republican Reptile

9/22/2006 1:17:57 AM

^^i bet you had it instilled in you and you didnt even know it, or want to admit it!

9/22/2006 1:42:49 AM

^If they're being instilled without us knowing it...what's this about "needing to get back to what we have traditionally stood for"?

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ?]

9/22/2006 1:50:01 AM

i knew someone would ask that...

its true, we have gotten away from that what brought us to this level. while those of us who attended church got that education, those who did not were simply subjected to the slow removal of such ideals from the classroom. they arent as overt as many of you shall claim, but id at least like to see a return to the respect for the heritage of our forefathers, as well as a greater respect for the family and traditional values.

9/22/2006 2:12:32 AM

here's me being progressive:

i don't particularly want to tell you what to do with your body. i just don't like to murder tiny human beings. you know, the ones that grow inside of a woman and have a heartbeat and brain waves. furthermore, it would be nice if i didn't have to battle big tobacco trying to peddle pot to my kids. if we can keep that shit from getting that big and/or starting the next generation of Opium Wars (plz to see the British in Asia), it would also be nice.

and while i'm pro-meritocracy, in that you should keep what you earn, i just know historically letting them eat cake doesn't cut it. the have-nots will either get you epidemiologically, by inventing spirals of destruction such as communism/socialism, or by engaging in armed conflict (plz to see Thucydides on the Peloponessian Wars).

i'm all about making progress by being reasonable. la sez faire neanderthalism and robotic statism are both equally worthless.

9/22/2006 2:15:27 AM

Quote :

"i bet you had it instilled in you and you didnt even know it,"

Oh, I knew it. I went to a Christian church. Was baptized at the age of 6. I attended church regularly until I began working 87 miles from home. But I began to question a lot of things about the followers of the Christian God and found a religious belief better suited to me.

Quote :

"as well as a greater respect for the family and traditional values."

Why do you think that "Judeo-Christian" beliefs are the only way to obtain this? Whatever happened to freedom of religion?

9/22/2006 2:55:34 AM

Fiscally conservative doesn't necessarily = anti-tax. It has more to do with responsible spending in my book.

9/22/2006 3:11:42 AM

Quote :

"^unplanned pregnancies happen. trust me. actually, i think a solid majority of pregnancies are unplanned."

Sure they do Duke, but the majority of those unplanned pregnancies are due to unsafe sex, not faulty birth control (unless you call pulling out a form of contraception).

I've never engaged in unsafe sex, because condoms are simply less of a hassle than a child (or even an abortion if that's your style).

People need to use condoms (male or female) or birth control, instead of doing it bareback all night long and then murdering someone because of it.

I know we all have to agree on where life begins (which is a truly difficult choice to make).

9/22/2006 7:44:30 AM

<---Republican Reptile

9/22/2006 8:51:12 AM

Quote :

"i'm all about making progress by being reasonable."

You could form a party on the concept and literally own Washington. You just need the resources...

9/22/2006 8:56:06 AM

you've asked this question before in this thread

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=416090

9/22/2006 9:01:05 AM

^Nah, there I was feigning that I didn't understand fiscal conservatism. Here, I'm tryna get at something different, but nobody's picking up what I'm laying down. All but a few people answered my question basically by calling themselves Libertarian. That's fine, I guess--except I doubt some of them actually are, you know, deep down, straight-up "if the neighbors wanna walk around naked on their property in front of my kid, I don't mind; it's their right" Libertarian.

But anyway nobody wants to address the idea that a lot of "socially progressive" things aren't "fiscally conservative." markgoal kinda hit on it though.

Oh, and I like to mention public preschool as much as possible.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM. Reason : sss]

9/22/2006 10:23:53 AM

Quote :

"Sounds more like Libertarianism. In fact, it sounds exactly like Libertarianism."

i think a lot of people espcially around here who claim they are conservative are really Libertarian. They are just ignorant of the entire spectrum of politics and think of every issue in a black or white, republican or democrat way. Most likely it stems from the fact of there upbringing being raised in a conservative home.

I tried to have a political conversation with one of my buddies who says he's very conservative. After stating his opinions on pro-choice, decriminalization of pot, and various other things I mentioned that his views were not that of mainstream republicans but were libertarian. Bad mistake hearing the word "liber" he immidiatly started going off about how he isn't liberal, fuck democrats and other shit. i just kinda laughed and gave up.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:38 AM. Reason : yeah]

9/22/2006 10:35:07 AM

Quote :

"After stating his opinions on pro-abortion,"

you mean pro-choice?

9/22/2006 10:36:03 AM

Quote :

"But anyway nobody wants to address the idea that a lot of "socially progressive" things aren't "fiscally conservative." markgoal kinda hit on it though."

Socially progressive is not the same thing as socially liberal.

But you've been ingrained with that catch phrase your whole life, so now you conflate the two.

And on public preschool...with the awesome record public school in general has, are you really suggesting we let them have the kids at an even more impressionable age? What's next, breeders?

9/22/2006 10:38:53 AM

SourPatchin

You seem to misunderstand Libertarianism. It is the neighbor's right to walk around naked on their property. It's also your right to determine what your kid sees and doesn't. But that's parenting, and it's up to you to decide how to do it and how to enforce it.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:39 AM. Reason : ...]

9/22/2006 10:39:04 AM

Quote :

"Fiscally conservative doesn't necessarily = anti-tax. It has more to do with responsible spending in my book. "

well, when you aren't spending tons of money, you don't have to take in tons of money.

Quote :

"Sure they do Duke, but the majority of those unplanned pregnancies are due to unsafe sex, not faulty birth control (unless you call pulling out a form of contraception). I've never engaged in unsafe sex, because condoms are simply less of a hassle than a child (or even an abortion if that's your style). People need to use condoms (male or female) or birth control, instead of doing it bareback all night long and then murdering someone because of it. I know we all have to agree on where life begins (which is a truly difficult choice to make)."

Well, the girl I got pregnant was on the patch, and we used condoms all but once. I should have a daughter in the next week or two.


but yes, 95% of the abortion debate is hinged upon where we define the beginning of human life. Birth, in my mind, is clearly a completely ridiculous point to draw that line. Conception is arguable, but not what I believe...and there's where we run into trouble. There isn't an easily defined point.


_________________________________________________________

I think I kinda sorta understand where you're going with the original post.

Yes, some issues fall into both the social and fiscal categories (really, most do at one level or another). Still, there are at least 4 political poles, not 2, and people are trying to explain where they gravitate towards.

9/22/2006 10:48:09 AM

Quote :

"I should have a daughter in the next week or two."

duke you are having another kid?

9/22/2006 10:52:48 AM

nah, same one.

they take 9 months, you know

9/22/2006 10:58:08 AM

i'd say the major problem with fiscal conservatism is the fact that the large majority of humans look out only for themselves. so when you don't have the taxes to put together public works, and the majority of people won't donate money willfully, then you can't really have any projects that benefit the public

what also gets me is that fiscal conservatives want to lower taxes and spend less in the govt, yet they almost always only follow through with half of that: lowering taxes

9/22/2006 11:27:34 AM

Quote :

"fiscal conservatives want to lower taxes and spend less in the govt, yet they almost always only follow through with half of that: lowering taxes"

That's so true Cherokee. Republicans are usually the guilty ones here.
The GOP gov't under Bush has out-spent the Clinton years by a lot. The problem is that politicians use our taxes to give us yummies in order to foster our vote. We have to have the will to give up our favorite gov't yummy in order to get spending under control.
What gov't benefit do you get right now that you'd be willing to give up in order to keep more of your paycheck?

Quote :

"so when you don't have the taxes to put together public works, and the majority of people won't donate money willfully, then you can't really have any projects that benefit the public"

This is a pretty tough mind-set to overcome... that only gov't can solve our problems. Our country functioned and improved for many years without any fed. income tax. But we have gradually been led astray to a dependent way of looking at problems. We think that no one would step up if the fed gov't was pushed back to its original responsibilites.

9/22/2006 12:01:44 PM

Quote :

"when you don't have the taxes to put together public works, and the majority of people won't donate money willfully, then you can't really have any projects that benefit the public"

it is not the intended purpose of government to provide for its public, it's purpose is to give us the ability to be able to provide for ourselves. A government that provides for its people controls its people. That's not exactly what we do here.

9/22/2006 12:31:20 PM

i consider myself fiscally conservative, however, i do beleive that there are a lot of things the gov't has to do using public funds to benefit society that will never happen otherwise.

I guess you are gonna volunteer some labor and money to build our roads since it is not our governments job to provide for the public. ^

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 12:47 PM. Reason : l]

9/22/2006 12:34:52 PM

what? no.


"the purpose is the ability to be able to provide for ourselves"


roads enable us to travel, thus be able to provide for tourselves


so dont be ridiculous

9/22/2006 12:44:45 PM

the purpose of government is to provide for the common defense AND well-being. so yes, public works projects are something you should look for the government to do.

9/22/2006 2:38:16 PM

^^ health care provides us with wellness thus allowing us to provide for ourselves

same logic. but i agree with roads and free health care so eh

9/22/2006 2:42:35 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Socially progressive is not the same thing as socially liberal. But you've been ingrained with that catch phrase your whole life, so now you conflate the two."

I'm suggesting that you all are the ones who confused. To some, "socially progressive" is banning guns. To you, "socially progressive" is telling the government to butt the fuck out and let you own whatever you want, returning to the days before registries--also sounds a lot like Libertarianism.

Quote :

"bgmims: And on public preschool...with the awesome record public school in general has, are you really suggesting we let them have the kids at an even more impressionable age? What's next, breeders?"

Research shows that academic success relies greatly on the years before age 5. So, fuck yeah, public preschool for anybody who wants it!

You wanna talk privatizing education, meet me in another thread.

Quote :

"Gamecat: You seem to misunderstand Libertarianism. It is the neighbor's right to walk around naked on their property. It's also your right to determine what your kid sees and doesn't. But that's parenting, and it's up to you to decide how to do it and how to enforce it."

Okay, I get the first part. I know it's my neighbor's right to walk around naked on their property. And I honestly wouldn't mind it or mind my child seeing it. However, if somebody started walking around naked on their front lawn on a busy road...I guarantee you complaints would be filed and the person would be arrested for something. And I'm suggesting that a lot of these people who claim to be Libertarians would probably be the ones filing complaints, "Good God, I don't need to see this on my rush hour from work! No, I can't take another way home; this is the quickest! Oh, think of the children!"

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 4:06 PM. Reason : VMakes some sense, but...]

9/22/2006 4:03:11 PM

Quote :

"except I doubt some of them actually are, you know, deep down, straight-up "if the neighbors wanna walk around naked on their property in front of my kid, I don't mind; it's their right" Libertarian."

There is a difference between not wanting your neighbors to walk around naked (I wouldn't) and wanting them to go to prison and have their property confiscated by the state (again, I wouldn't).

A true libertarian would suggest you kindly ask them not to prance around naked. If they refuse, consider building a fence, either on their property or yours. I'm sure the entire neighborhood would be willing to share the construction costs to enclose the naked people. If none of this will work, offer compensation in exchange for a promise to avoid outdoor naked activity (after a third party assumes collateral, of course).

Or, if all else fails, buy them out of their home. Or, if this problem is very common, then before building a neighborhood the builder should have set up a homeowners association based upon free contract with reasonable penalties for violation of the bylaws. Pro-Naked people could, in turn, set up their own neighborhoods in which outdoor nudity is mandatory.

Quote :

"the major problem with fiscal conservatism is the fact that the large majority of humans look out only for themselves"

Well, if everyone is looking after themselves then everyone is being looked after, aren't they? Or are you saying some people are incapable of looking after a single human being? If some are incapable of looking after one human, how can you expect some other people to look after 300 million?

Quote :

"roads enable us to travel, thus be able to provide for tourselves"

Well, there is always a line to be drawn. But just because you cannot imagine people to provide roads for themselves does not mean they could not, because they did for hundreds of years before government got into it. Way back in the day, roads would be built using charity donations and then maintained using either more charity or tolls. Some U.S. County Governments evolved out of these road cooperatives. Later on, for-profit companies got into the game, building plank roads in hopes of making a profit off future tolls (they usually went bust, but they existed).

9/22/2006 4:04:37 PM

Quote :

"Research shows that academic success relies greatly on the years before age 5. So, fuck yeah, public preschool for anybody who wants it!"

For the love of God, link this kind of shit. You can't just claim this. I'm not saying it isn't true, but you have to cite research when you use it. Think of the children!

9/22/2006 4:09:06 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Or, if this problem is very common, then before building a neighborhood the builder should have set up a homeowners association based upon free contract with reasonable penalties for violation of the bylaws. Pro-Naked people could, in turn, set up their own neighborhoods in which outdoor nudity is mandatory."

Under Libertarianism, whites could also use homeowners associations to deny non-whites access to their neighborhood. I don't like that. I require some laws.

9/22/2006 4:10:25 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism

Quote :

"However, social progressives throughout the world advocate a wide variety of different social changes, and separate groups of social progressives may oppose each other because they support change in different directions. For instance, social progressives may be either left-wing or right-wing, depending on the kind of social mores they wish to change. A social progressive advocating feminism in the United States would be seen as left-wing, whereas a social progressive campaigning to outlaw recreational drugs in the Netherlands would be seen as right-wing. The term social progressivism is not to be confused with social liberalism. "Social liberalism" does not refer to advocacy of social change, but rather to a specific kind of liberal ideology (see the relevant article for more information). "

9/22/2006 4:11:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't like that."

A great basis for all laws, amirite?

9/22/2006 4:12:05 PM

bgmims, twice now you've accused me of confusing social progressivism and social liberalism. The reason why you've done this is because you read a wikipedia doc (that I also read, by the way) that says the two are commonly confused.

But you haven't shown me where I've confused the two. You just keep accusing me of it.

9/22/2006 4:25:05 PM

Quote :

"Well, if everyone is looking after themselves then everyone is being looked after, aren't they? Or are you saying some people are incapable of looking after a single human being? If some are incapable of looking after one human, how can you expect some other people to look after 300 million? "

i think you are confusing "provide for oneself" vs "provide for the common BENEFIT."

i can't be expected to look after my health if i break my leg, or have a heart attack, or get mono. i have to go to a doctor for that. healthcare is a common good

same with roads. i'm not going to build my own road from my house to work. hence, public benefit

9/22/2006 4:28:46 PM