Posted on 04/22/2015 10:08:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In this case it is another position that libertarians are left wing on, immigration.
It makes a difference if the Kochs are using their libertarian influence to move America and the GOP left, which they are.
They are idiots if they think that you can have social liberalism and fiscal conservatism at the same time=, the last 60 years has proved how ridiculous that is.
Social Liberalism as defined as the big government welfare state, right?
However, in theory anyways, things like a permissive immigration policy work with Fiscal Conservatism if all government programs and spending to accomidate that policy (from welfare for native workers who lose their jobs, to ESOL classes and subsidized lunches in the public schools, etc) are eliminated.
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t a raft of other negative consequences (lots of unemployed native workers who get priced out of jobs by immigrants who will work for less) and practically it’s not going to happen. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
No, you already listed some some of them. Social liberalism is being OK with abortion and gay marriage, open borders, hookers, drugs, public porn, etc, you already know because you already support libertarianism and oppose conservatism.
Immigration is destroying the nation, and erasing our people and our culture, and they would come by the 100s of millions regardless of welfare or social programs, of course they vote democrat when they get here.
You CANNOT import liberal voters, and get conservative voting out of it. You CANNOT have social liberalism destroying people and society, and get conservative voters from it.
Social liberalism/libertarianism makes economic conservatism impossible.
Have you ever allowed anyone to educate you on how the right-left vote splits in America? Who the voters are voting for economic conservatism, and who votes against it?
You’re missing my point. Which was, strictly speaking, fiscal Conservatism (defined as small, limited government that restrains itself from spending, borrowing and taxing) is compatible with Libertarinism (laissez-fare policies) on social issues.
I specifically pointed out that there were a raft of other negative and therefore undesirable social consequences to Libertarianism. But they exist outside the limited scope of the point I was making.
It is impossible to have libertarian social liberalism, and get anything from it other than fiscal liberalism.
The last 60 years makes that clear, as America moved from social conservatism, it just kept creating more and more voters who support big government and welfare, and more social liberalism. Social liberalism leads to increasing the pool of big government voters, as does immigration.
Who are the most conservative voters in America? Evangelicals.
Social conservatives are the ones voting for limited government and economic conservatism. Most social liberals are voting for more government and welfare.
Completely agree with you. It’s why I used the words “theoretical” and “practical” in my earlier posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.