Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MNDude
It's a theoretical impossibility.

To be socially liberal is to use the power of the state to encourage destructive behaviors like drug abuse and sexual promiscuity. The social liberal protects people from the natural consequences of their immorality. This often involves subsidies, which are expensive. The expenses increase dramatically over time as more people respond to the incentives that the social liberal set up by indulging in more destructive behavior.

The socially liberal state can never be cheap. Any politician who joins the left in demolishing conventional morality and promises tight budgets at the same time is a liar.

7 posted on 12/07/2009 8:07:12 AM PST by fluffdaddy (Is anyone else missing Fred Thompson about now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: fluffdaddy

You beat me to it.

You can’t be behaviorially permissive without consequences.
Funny, that. Breaking the Creator’s laws has “natural” consequences. But I digress.

“Social liberals” see consequences as a restriction on behavior, so they insist that everyone else alleviate those consequences,

which causes the fiscal side to also become socialist/liberal.


17 posted on 12/07/2009 8:15:06 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: fluffdaddy
Haha.

Socially liberal would be people who don't have issues with a woman's right to choice.

Socially liberal would be people who feel marijuana should be legalized (saving millions in the penal system).

Socially liberal believe in a person's right to commit suicide without government interference.

Socially liberal would believe in every consenting adult's right to marry.

The social conservatives seem to be the people who are able to pick and choose where and when the government is involved in other peoples lives. The social liberal wants them out most of the time. To me it's the social conservative that is the hypocrite.

20 posted on 12/07/2009 8:16:54 AM PST by TheSuaveOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: fluffdaddy

Theoretical impossibility??? You should better acquaint yourself with what it means to be socially liberal. It absolutely does not mean the state should encourage destructive behaviors. To be socially liberal is to believe that the state should take no action (either for or against) regarding sex, relationships, et cetera. This is based on the same logic that favors fiscal conservatism; the government should not intrude on people’s personal lives in either an authoritarian or financial manner. A true fiscal conservative/social liberal would say, “Sure, go have fun using dirty needles to shoot up heroin, but have fun paying for the hospital bills after. The government definitely isn’t going to help you out.” These kinds of responses are the cheapest responses in the world. This also puts a premium on personal responsibility. It simply comes down to the fact that you either succeed or fail by your own choices without the net of government tying you down or holding you up. Morality doesn’t enter into it, and the government doesn’t have to bill citizens for services it doesn’t perform.


170 posted on 02/22/2010 7:52:09 PM PST by socynical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson