Posted on 12/14/2014 11:33:01 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Reclusive billionaire David Koch, a powerful donor in American conservative politics, says he’s a “social liberal.” “I’m basically a libertarian, and I’m a conservative on economic matters, and I’m a social liberal,” Koch told ABC News’ Barbara Walters....
Koch, who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, said he isn’t concerned with candidates he supports who don’t share some of his views. He said his primary concern when choosing a candidate to support is their fiscal policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
And Americans for Prosperity wonders why I don't give to them anymore.
It won't stop the Dems from demonizing him as an extreme right-wing Tea Party kook who "controls" every candidate that has an "R" next to their name on the ballot.
That's where libertarians leave me cold. If they are so much for human rights, why not those unborn in the womb? To them, it's all about passing through the birth canal. Before that, they are just tissue.
Plus, I believe Koch to be full of crap. He is a solid socialist which DOES interfere with others' rights. Just look at who he supports and his history.
What’s his take on street crime and the 2nd?
We’re all “basically a libertarian”: you can be your own god as long as you let me be my god. All I can say for myself is Thank the One true God he takes prisoners. I take my Lord and righteuos Captor’s word for it that hates the shedding of innocent blood and vile, reprobate sodomy. Our nation and this world are due for a reckoning that will make us torture hating self worshipers chew our tounges off in agony. It’s not the economy, it’s eternity stupid.
closure of the ductus arteriosus confers personhood. /s
It’s very stylish to say one is “fiscally conservative and socially and morally liberal”. However, I find that social and moral liberalism always results in calls for and enactment of more statism and socialism and less true freedom. Which is why the communists love social/liberalism so much:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Amen.
The Founders understood the most important and fundamental of terms this way:
Life is everything that pertains to the social aspects of human nature, life itself for each and all members of the family - all social interactions that are a part of the persons life meaning the family and all people who surround that family.
Liberty in this respect was understood as everything pertaining the economic aspects affecting the family. The freedom to work and fiscally take care of the family, basically everything that economically impacts the family.
The Pursuit of Happiness was understood by our Founders as freedom to live a virtuous life so that in the end a person, after having live well spiritually, would be able to spend Eternity with God.
So, for someone to claim to not be a social conservative they might as well take a machete to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the entire concept of the family.
You cannot be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Social liberalism puts more power in the hands of government who must pay for the poor choices individuals make.
True dat.
Being socially liberal does not necessarily mean using the government to bail people out of their choices in life. It’s a matter of individual responsibility, which is a libertarian/conservative nexus. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
He’s a Big-L Libertarian. Big-L Libertarians are social liberals and conservatives are well aware of that.
Since ABC News has no idea what actual conservatives believe, it’s not surprising that this seems to be a revelation to them.
bump
Never liked or trusted those guys
Riiight, show me a time when the government hasn't stepped in to pay for others' bad choices.
Exactly. And socialists/statist/communist types understand this fact of reality better than many capitalists sadly.
That’s why I laugh everytime liberals go against the Kochs, don’t they realize they are one of them?
There is a reason why there are no libertarian societies or countries.
Without non-contradictory and sufficient social standards one cannot have a stable society.
The libertarian code of social standards is that your right to do as you wish stop at the end of my nose. But this is no where near enough of a boundary to form a cohesive society. This implies that you have no vital interests other than your own physical person.
Is what happens to your friends and family not your interest? Is what happens to what you own not your interest? Is some stranger getting killed not your interest?
The reason so many people are against abortion and same sex “marriage” is because they are wise enough to recognize that those activities will eventually impact their self interests.
Abortion degrades the value of human life, which means it will in some way eventually degrade the life of those that are born. Same sex “marriage” makes a mockery of real marriage and family, thus reducing support for the institution of traditional families which has been the cornerstone of western societies and the primary supporter of human life and well being.
The bells will eventually toll for thee.
Doesn’t mean they don’t do it, just that being socially liberal does not necessarily mean one is for it.
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.