[chris1]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

[tkathy]

Jesse Ventura was a fiscal conservative and social moderate. (Healthy dose of personal responsibility.) Big difference between social liberal (victimhood) and social moderate (personal responsibility).

[InterceptPoint]

Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

For example???

[Kenny Bunk]

That MIGHT not be true. If those in charge are fiscally conservative, those who have reason, might change certrain aspects of their lifestyles if they knew very well that THEY would be FISCALLY responsible for the consequences.

Bastardy among certain elements of the population springs immediately to mind. Certainly, if were not a method for single young moms to become financially independent by collecting benefits and ADC payments, it might become less popular.

[Heartbreak of Psoriasis]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results. Excellent point.

More broadly, the problem with libertarianism is that it fails to see that a free market economy and civil society can thrive only when the great mass of the population are disciplined by faith in transcendent values.

Only a deeply religious (and I dare say Christian) people could have created the United States.

Is it not clear that as our society has become less Christian it has become more socialistic? It's obvious why that happens: when society is religious, it is strong, and it doesn't need an enormous state machine to keep the peace, ensure that the elderly are cared for, prevent child abuse, educate children. When society loses its faith, it weakens (soaring divorce rates, increased child abuse, failing education of the young, rampant STD's) and the state must step in to prop the whole thing up.

In short, "family values" are the very thing that allow "laissez faire" economics to function. You can't have one without the other, at least over the long haul. Of course, that's really the problem - we have as a people no real historical sense, and can't imagine a "long haul" much past the next NFL season.

A Christian America is a free America, and conversely a pagan America is a tech-savvy pagan Roman Empire.

We're still living on the moral capital of the previous Christian generations, but we've drawn down that account, and little remains, in my estimation. This has actually done a disservice to us in a way, because it's prevented us from making the connection between economic freedom and public morality.

[MichaelDammit]

Good post....but the issue is really more about gun control. Arnie has not hit the "there's already 10,000 gun laws and crime still happens" line enough. That indicates to the conservatives that he believes Maria's uncle's position on this seminal issue....

[SauronOfMordor]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

The foundation of libertarianism is the freedom to persue your own goals, plus the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your free acts. The success or failure of the libertarian approach has everything to do with the sequence in which things are implimented. Deregulating the S&L's while maintaining federal insurance for them led to the S&L fiasco a few years back.

The correct sequence is to take a machete to the "safety net" BEFORE giving somebody the OK to do things that would have an adverse impact on the rest of us if we have to catch him.

200 years ago, we had a level of personal freedom that would seem radical by today's standards. The reason it didn't bankrupt society is because people were not insulated by the consequences of their actions. You screwed up bad enough, you starved in the ditch -- unless some wiser relative took you in on his terms

[and the horse you rode in on]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

Nonsense, it is prohibition, with its policing and incarceration costs which is more expensive. Most of the costs of todays activities is due to black market conditions.

[BlazingArizona]

Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

Only if the fiscal conservatives feel obligated to subsidize people for the results of bad behavior. The Libertarian response is: if they were true fiscal cnservatives, why should they feel so obligated?