"Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative" Makes No Sense
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- --David lays out the case for why the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" mantra that many people go by actually makes no sense and isn't well-represented among the general population
🔊 Want to read 5 books in one sitting? Try Blinkist for free at www.blinkist.co...
dailycampus.co...
www.theatlanti...
www.huffpost.c...
Support The David Pakman Show:
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
Engage with us on social media:
-Join on UA-cam: / @thedavidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-TDPS on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on TDPS subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on February 21, 2020
#davidpakmanshow #libertarianism #classicalliberalism
I'm a progressive who's fiscally conservative. I want to cut the military budget in half!
Not a progressive in the political sense but Amen to the second part. In fact you should want to cut it completely. 0 tax dollars should be going overseas, whether it is to Israel or the Middle East oil cartels, or for the CIA to run drugs through Mexico
@@stopplayingthegame I may be wrong but I think it was a play on words
Any cuts for the military should not effect stuff like treatment for ptsd and all the other awful horrors of war. There's plenty to cut elsewhere.
Yeah, I'm fiscally conservative because I see clean air and water as a valuable resource
@@Islandswamp I agree with you there, but treating PTSD and other horrors of war shouldn't have anything to do with military spending, that should be part of our Universal Health care, regardless of how you got it, be it war or something else traumatic.
"I'm Socially liberal/fiscally conservative" means:
The government can't be in control of our society, but corporations can.
I'm all for human rights, unless it conflicts with capitalism.
The only principles I have are the ones that don't cost (me) anything.
LGBTQ, feminism, racism, abortion, weed related issues don't really have an upfront monetary cost.
Healthcare, education, housing, etc, which are all things that are objectively needed to have a healthy advanced society we claim to have, do have costs. People with this mindset have decided no one's life is worth spending money
"I'm all for human rights unless it conflicts with capitalism." I think it's that sentiment which he's saying you can't coherently defend, like that's a pretty low bar for being "socially liberal"...
"the only principles I have are those that don't cost me nothing"
Spot on!
Edit: pp
Uh, no. Corporations have to meet consumer preferences year after year. If they don't, then they lose market share.
It is when corporations get public-private partnerships, subsidies, collectivized risk and regulations designed to create barriers to entry that the individual needs to worry.
The New Deal was corporatism. The left doesn't understand that
@@josephpeeler5434 corporations and subsidies never mix :/
Socially Liberal = personal freedoms and equality for people
Fiscally Responsible = balanced budgets and protections for individuals over corporations.
Finally, someone making sense in the comments.
On paper that’s what that could mean. Libertarians seem to disagree however
kmoney890 libertarians have opposing views though at times. They believe in smaller govt and more freedoms. But private insurance can take options away from people as well as not be transparent. Govt run insurance is open to the public, cheaper and can be controlled through votes. Hmmm
Balanced budget is a vague, nonsensical term.
Frank F Fletcher so we should print more money than we take in leading to inflation and less buying power?
It does make sense if you fit any of these criteria:
1) Rich
Joshua Salem 2) Very rich
Rich person: "I feel bad for the poor." Also Rich Person: Deposits $1 billion into his/her bank account instead of donating to help poor.
2) stupid
... although I'm ngl people who identify as liberitarians often are the only other people on the political spectrum I can tolerate as a progressive. The only reason they are dumb is because they mean well but contradict their social intentions.
It is super disheartening
Please give to Bernie Sanders.
Lolz
Did you get Danny DeVito too? :P
Already did yesterday.
I have, I will .
We have been donating to Bernie's campaign every month for many months, and will continue to do so. Money well spent.
“I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.”
Translation: I’m all for human rights just so long as they don’t inconvenience wealthy people.
Woke capitalism in a nutshell.
David is wrong. "Socially liberal" doesnt mean "progressive". socially liberal means people should be free to do what they want. it has nothing to to with "fixing poverty". i am socially liberal and I dont give a f-ck about the poor or the environment.
No, that's a wrong interpretation. It means the following: I want people to do whatever they want, both socially and economically. They also believe that letting people act freely WILL solve the problem. They believe government intervention is actually making things worse, that it is limiting rights and limiting economic development. They see government as the source of the problems. If you want to give money to a special fund or pay more in taxes, they think you should be free to do so, as long as you don't force them to do the same. They're not forcing you to do anything you don't want, so why would you force them to do something they don't want? Freedom and individual responsibility are the ultimate values in their view and the free market will solve these social issues on its own. If you think a business is harming the environment, you and others should simply stop doing business with them. If everyone stops using cars, oil companies and the car industry will be have to adapt to protect the environment or go out of business.
@@octavianpopescu4776 so like anarchy? Also the free market was totally fine with child labor and six, twelve hour work days with no brake. When the people complained the free market was like "were a monopoly bitch do something about." So the people were like ok and they got the government to break up the monopolies, and impose worker regulations, and mandatory breaks. The free market is not free it only cares about the dollar. Who ever has the most dollars gets to call the shots, period and the only defense the people have against this is the ability to impose their will through the power of the government.
@@octavianpopescu4776 Outstanding! Very concise summation.
This was the most asinine commentary I’ve ever heard from David.
First of all “liberal” and “conservative” are very vague terms so of course you can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, whatever that might mean. What people usually mean, however, is that they are socially tolerant and fiscally tight-walleted. Even if you don’t like the idea of tolerating somebody while having no interest in making any sacrifices to help them, there isn’t a logical contradiction there.
Also, David not being able to think of a single social issue other than gay rights is pretty pathetic. That’s it? That’s all you can think of?
Thank you for posting this, people who post videos like this create and support intolerance of other political parties and I'm glad to see this comment.
That title sounds like me. Except, I'm fiscal Conservative when it comes to the government spending. I'm against bailing out oligarchs and banks. Government spending needs to be smart. We need fair market, not free market. We need regulations to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Taxes should help everyone in one way or another. Fixing infrastructure, implementing green technology, ect. That's what I thought fiscal conservatism is supposed to be.
You sound downright communist saying that to a far-right winger...be careful, or you may become a libertarian socialist :D
All kidding aside, fair comment tho
Seiferboy Gaming
I really don’t see how we couldn’t bail out the banks and other large companies years ago
That's corporate-controlled government bailing out oligarchs and banks. The Founding Fathers were against corporations interfering with government. "The power of ALL Corporations ought to be limited... the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison did NOT say the power of Government ought to be limited. The reason Libertarians want "Deregulation" is because they don't want We The People to "Limit the power of ALL Corporations" like James Madison insisted!
Our founding fathers had a healthy fear of corporations and allowed them to form only with strict limits... reclaimdemocracy[.]org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits.
Most of this vital history is unknown to citizens today, but it can provide critical understanding and tools for solving today's problems. Corporations are setting the agenda on issues in congress, courts and the media rather than "We the People" as our founding fathers intended. "We the People" can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.
.
Thunderbird
Yes and hundreds of years ago a good portion of the founding fathers thought it was perfectly okay to have legal slavery in the US.
Typing out this babble is pointless. I don’t care what people hundreds of years ago thought, especially due to the fact we are more educated than they are.
A fair market is a free market.
The libertarians I know are not into social programs at all. They are into individual freedoms which would absolutely exclude using taxes for helping others. Fine, free markets, isolationist, smoke weed have guns and so on, but never have I heard socially liberal in the sense that they believe in helping the poor.
Darcie Kelly would libertarians support more expensive single private health insurance company that they would have zero input over its operation or a govt based cheaper option who could vote and have open transparency for?
Darcie Kelly the basic idea is that a free market system does the best job of allocating economic resource across the widest percentage of the population and it creates the greatest degree of mobility from one social wrung to the next. We want to help the poor, we just don’t believe that government is the best way to do it. We believe strongly in free trade and open borders for the movement of goods and labor. That’s the opposite of isolationism. Free trade and positive economic relationships is the best way to promote peace where trade restrictions and mercantilism have largely only produced war in the past. And yes, smoke weed, own guns and all the rest. Have sex with whom ever you want, marry who you want. The government never has the right to interfere with your right to defend yourself or interfere with your right to make your own choices about how you live your life. The founding principle is the non-aggression principle. So long as you are not initiating violence against someone else, the government has no right to regulate your behavior. Critical in that is relationship between that idea and climate change. Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily close the door to environmental regulation since dangerous commercial activities that are harmful to the environment can reasonably be considered to violate the non-aggression principle. We might still argue over the scope of regulation there and whether government is the best mechanism to regulate those activities but it doesn’t close the door to it.
@@joeloporto5210 The non-aggression principle utterly undermines libertarianism.
Low wages are a form of aggression. Price-fixing is a form of aggression. Excessive rents are a form of aggression. Denying access to healthcare is a form of aggression. Land banking is a form of aggression. Avoiding taxes is a form of aggression. Over-working employees is a form of aggression. Polluting waterways is a form of aggression. False advertising is a form of aggression. Making and selling unsafe products is a form of aggression. Producing sub-standard food is a form of aggression. Mis-labelling products and/or their ingredients is a form of aggression.
I could go on but I think I've made my point. The fact is, regulation is _necessary_ because for-profit companies will not take a non-aggression approach on their own - doing so reduces their bottom line. There already isn't _enough_ regulation - everything I listed still happens despite the legal frameworks already in place for public protection - and libertarians want _less_ regulation. It's an indefensible position.
Grimbeard no. Literally none of those things are a form of aggression. Me not having something and wanting or needing something from someone else can never be a form of aggression. That is just inequity. I take it that you are not a libertarian so you don’t have to buy the argument but the logic of the philosophy flows from that core principle. But just to reiterate, nothing you said is correct.
Grimbeard wait. Sorry, I missed some of your rant. If a company mislabeled something or produced unsafe food or dangerous products, that would be aggression. That aggression is recognized in the law. And you can sue those companies to oblivion. Private regulation is the plaintiffs bar. Which is a better regulator than government. When government regulates things, a bunch of lobbyists show up, write massive checks and certain businesses get the regulations the way they want them and other businesses get screwed. It’s the antithesis of capitalism and it’s abject corruption. That’s what happens when government regulates. Crony capitalism.
The libertarian position: "I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I'm also in favor of legalizing discrimination against those who are gay."
Heinz Guderian first part correct, second part incorrect. But you already knew that.
@@seanie002 "laize fair" yeah, they do indeed
M A well said sir. No, you're not crazy.
@M A no libertarians could care Jack all about the environment.
@@seanie002 If you don't want allow government to regulate such things, the second part is indeed true. Look at how Gary Johnson got booed at the Libertarian debates for saying that he supported the Civil Rights Act.
Im socially conservative but fiscally & environmentally very liberal, what does that make me? What’s the opposite of libertarianism?
Fascist I guess. I’m joking, but you seem like a Southern Democrat from the 1950s
I'm personally more the opposite. I'm socially conservative & fiscally liberal.
The most humorous thing is that Federalists/Hamiltonians were the right-wing and the Anti-Federalists/Jeffersonians were left-wing despite that nowdays it would be the other way around or the two will be considered to be in the right
@@Antonio-ej8wp True. Also, I feel like I’ve seen you from somewhere... are you familiar with PCB?
you mean fiscal progressive, i do not think u know what fiscal liberal means because im economic liberalism or neoliberal if u want to call it. i small government low government spending.
Just because you disagree doesn’t make it a fallacy. People who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, like myself, put individual rights at the forefront of their political value system. There are huge debates within libertarianism classical liberalism, and market liberalism about the role of environmental protection, the impact your individual choices have on other people. But the simple fact of wanting less government in every facet of society is much more consistent than both your worldview, and most conservative world views
Yeah exactly
I’m an example of a consequentialist libertarian and i believe strongly in climate action. Just because we don’t government mandated segregation doesn’t mean we can’t also believe in supporting an already overgrown and ineffective welfare system. I would say that being a “lolbert” makes a lot more sense than keynesian liberalist in my eyes.
You can believe in climate change and gay rights without wanting the government sticking their hands into every aspect of it. More government is not the solution to all problems. In fact it's the cause of most problems.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and environmentally fucked in the head
republicans - bible + weed
Opioid of the masses
I think you said it best with: if your priority is "cut cut cut the deficit," well then you can't deal with the social issues you claim to be liberal on. It makes no sense in that respect, many of these internal inconsistencies that position can entail. The poll at 4:18 is really interesting too, that there are more people socially conservative and economically liberal than the converse
We could cut taxes and still fund many of the programs that currently exist. The problem is mismanagement of funding, not lack of funding.
@@ryanfoltz1276 The major mismanagement of taxation in the USA is the colossal military budget.
Why can we not "cut cut cut" the defense budget? We can set up a program to reduce spending over like a 10 year period as we ease out of some global military bases and cut contracts with big manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed. Meanwhile, we either ramp up social programs over that 10 year period or we keep the status quo and reduce taxation. We can get a lot done with like another 400 billion per year, and we would still be outspending the second most funded military by a factor of 3. Just doing that alone would pay for 20% of medicare for all, without raising any taxes at all, and we would still have the most expensive military in the world. Obviously for an ambitious program like that, we would need to raise taxes, but by cutting, we can lessen the burden.
@@_badmadsadlad Taxes don't fund Federal govt spending. The US can afford larger deficits and actually has alot more fiscal space to spend.
@@ryanfoltz1276 you’re right that there is mismanagement with the current funding, but there’s also terrible policy on how we’re funded.
I strongly disagree, it's not a oxymoron being fiscally conservative and socially liberal because embraces perfect individualism and self ownership, wake up people politics are NOT white and black you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and even people can be socially conservative BUT leftist in economy.
sounds like they are two-faced, they support solving the problem so long as it doesn't inconvenience them...
Really
Andy what a disingenuous statement. I bet you're a Bernie Bro.
@@seanie002 so what if he is? I've yet to see any action libertarians take to use our tax dollars for the community. Though they are a supporter of corporate welfare and profits over people
@@seanie002 hmm a number name you must be a cult member or a rusian troll doll.
It’s a cop out for those who don’t want to admit to being conservatives.
I’m not sure I agree. Why can’t people be socially liberal about certain things and fiscally conservative about certain things. Why does it have to be so black and white? People are complicated.
A few things to say here.
Entrepreneurs who start green companies do not because there are tax incentives. They start them because climate change had pushed them toward altruism. In addition, large corporations and wealthy individuals have increased income inequality due to the tax subsidies that come with these climate change initiatives. A carbon tax would incentivize companies to move toward greener solutions for their energy needs, but giving out government handouts in support of it is not a proper use of funds. We are facing a debt crisis that is larger than climate change and we cannot fight climate change without a private sector. A lot of millennials are making purchasing and investing decisions based on their climate beliefs, this is without government intervention.
To be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is not contradictory. It means to be someone who believes that free market capitalism yeilds the best results for all of society while rejecting a traditional conservative conformist lifestyle. If you believe that government programs are the only way to solve social problems, you are fiscally liberal. All David is doing here is conflating social and fiscal positions into the same thing so that he can call it contradictory to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
REAL Fiscal Conservatism would be FOR environmental regulation because such policies SAVE MONEY in the LONG RUN by avoiding the massive costs of EXTERNALITIES such as super fund cleanups, pollution related health consequences, etc.
We already are.
@@Lycaon1765 SAID: "We already are."
REPLY: Who is "we", and already are what?
Your opinion on the matter sounds more conservative then progressive because this is extremely close minded.
There's plenty of free market ideas about a lot of the stuff discussed. If you want to criticize it, that's fine. But this is just shilling your own political beliefs and not adding anything to the discussion.
The entire idea with austrian economics is exactly that it would be more fair for the majority then what we currently have. And there are plenty of free market alternatives for preserving nature and handling the environment.
You can ABSOLUTELY be socially liberal and fiscally convervative.
It is a bit of generalization.
What has happened is libertarians have become the dominant voice for Jeffersonian Republicanism.
However Contemporary Libertarianism is highly influenced by Hayek, Mises, and Ayn Rand who recommend a violation of Jeffersonian Republicanism.
Conservatives should remember that it was Jefferson who wrote the outlines for not only publicly funded primary school education but for publicly funded University education!
The fact that there is a conservative backlash against Sanders plan for free college education violates Jefferson's own ideas and principles and proposals.
What was Jefferson's reasoning? That Universal access to Education is an institution that strengthens democracy so therefore it should be considered an appropriate interpretation of the general welfare clause.
You can make the same Jeffersonian argument for Medicare4All. To be purely Jeffersonian it might be interpreted as Medicaid4all because it strengthens states rights over federal government.
But Jefferson was all for federal spending for the sake of the general welfare. What he did during his presidency was created an interstate highway system with federal funding as well.
The Republicans have been completely Hijacked by shallow neoliberal apologists for decades.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. The key to success for this country is to have progressive type policies executed in a conservative manner. The trick is to be ready to allow folks to be left behind if they chose not to participate in the free market of goods, ideas and services. While, at the same time, offering the basic tools citizens need to thrive, a useful education and a very basic level of safety nets.
"Very basic" Hmmmm...lots of wriggle room there for the socially liberal.fiscally conservative brigade.
The only ideology that is socially Liberal and economically capitalist is Social Democracy, and still, even that calls for regulation of the markets.
The funny thing is "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" would actually be an apt description of medicare for all (more social freedom and yet at a lower cost... and yet ironically those are a lot of the people that would be against it.
technically fiscally conservative just means making the least expensive choice... for example, in a economic system where pollution is taxed/fined appropriately its more fiscally conservative to embrace green tech (even at a higher upfront cost) than to have to be responsible for the long term and short term costs of coal/oil.
so the term "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" actually DOES make sense the problem is society itself doesn't make sense; society itself is illogical and self destructive.
No it wouldn't lmao. Bernie makes private insurance illegal and covers several other healthcare things (such as vision, dental, and prescriptions) that other countries with socialized healthcare don't cover. His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars. His plan alone over 10 years will cost just as much, if not more, as the total US government's entire budget over 10 years (assuming the government doesn't increase it or decrease it).
@@Lycaon1765
1) private insurance can still cover anything bernie's medicare plan doesn't IE cosmetic surgery and theoretically non cosmetic augmentation for example when implantable technology becomes commercial... so no it doesn't make it illegally they just can't compete.. and theoretically they couldn't financially compete anyways so that's a moot point.
2) yes, his plan will just tens of trillions... NEW FLASH the current system ALREADY cost more... 2-5 trillion more over 10 years to be exact.
and no, it would be about 2.5 years worth of the economy over 10 years... and again the current system already cost more.
3) many country already do this to a slightly lesser degree, bernie's plan pretty much covers EVERYTHING that could be needed, which is what people should expect.
4) your healthcare system sucks, and obamacare (ACA) was nothing more than a bandaid for healthcare system, even obama originally ran on single payer, obamacare (ACA) was the compromise, a republican plan(romneycare), that even republicans refused to support.
@@Lycaon1765 "His plan will cost tens of TRILLIONS of dollars." and even according to conservative think tanks it is cheaper than what we have currently. Fail argument, go sit in the corner. Don't forget your donkey hat son.
...but muh private dictatorship... democracy bad... workers bad...
@Kevin Michael Glad to see someone know that the US had pretty socialistic policies after WW2.
I have friends who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They don’t want want the government involved but was personally very generous to organizations. They feel they want to know where their money is going.
Disagree! Oil &gas is propped up today with subsidies. Getting rid of them will create a more level playing field. Green innovation will win if less money went to bad actors. We may have even had a more green environment ages ago.
Is it conservatives or is it the furthest left wing candidate calling for removal of those subsidies?
@@generalparrish9818 its corrupt neo-cons that aren't actually principled in their supposed libertarian/conservative views
I like Pakman, but this video misrepresents the group he describes, because he has granted himself a monopoly on the word liberal and defined it as someone who necessarily supports heavy handed government involvement and taxation. Liberal simply means open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Classical Liberalism is the real and original liberalism and the Europeans are still using Liberalism as Classical Liberalism. Which supports small government and extended liberty both economically and socially(?). Those so called "Liberals" are social democrats and maybe even Democratic Socialists. They are not liberals. Supporting gay marriage isnt enough to be a Liberal minded person.
Felix Steiner basically I’m like the type of people u said (classical liberal) because I believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom in other words, both economically liberal and socially liberal. We support free market capitalism but also allow modern ideas like same-sex marriage, pro-choice abortion, freedom in religion, gun rights and all other freedoms. We are truly LIBERAL!
@@gytan2221 Hell yeah that's right where I am.
You can help the poor and disenfranchised without heavy government regulation. Absolutely idiotic video
I'm socially conservative and fiscally a communist
What about socially conservative; economically liberal. And what about fiscally moderate.
Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative really is just taking things case by case. We pay already pay taxes. Whether you vote blue or red you always seem to get a raise in taxes. Those taxes might as well go to things we want them to go to. Roads, Schools, Welfare programs(for those who really need them) and our military. Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to BS especially with other countries. As for social liberty, let people do as they wish. As long as it doesn’t affect your personal life.
Disagree. The stance you speak of could be looked at a reduced government stance. Most people I have talked to about liberalism discribe the idea of the government being too inefficient/effectively. The solution being a more hands off approach that leaves social policies to the local private sector. Let communities address their on problems at a smaller scale.
Besides woman rights and climate change, myself being left socially does indeed not affect many policies as I end up leaning right in most.
"Just leave me alone. Please take less of my money and don't tell me what I can put into my body or who I can sleep with." How does that not make sense?
That makes perfect sense, this was a total strawman
I guess the part where you vote Republican because they're more "fiscally conservative" and they turn around, take more of your money, tell you what you can put into your body and dictate who you can sleep with.
Fiscally intelligent and Socially aware .. shouldn’t we all be?
Small government does not equate to anarchy. We libertarians are not anarchists. We dont want no government and therefore no regulations. We just look for the answer that requires the least ammount of government interference. Unlike our rivals who seem to use it as the answer to every ill humanity faces.
Nothing contradictory here. Keep your own house clean before throwing those rocks over here David.
I don't agree that socially liberal and fiscally conservative policies are necessarily in contradiction. You state the position of fiscal conservatives as they are now, with a bias against environmental policies. But this is a very short term position. In the longer term it makes far, far more sense fiscally to enact socially liberal and environmentally responsible policies. With rising sea levels and the damage to the environment, longer term liberal environmental policies make huge sense fiscally. In addition there is no necessary disjunction between fiscal conservativism and social liberalism and vice versa. The two don't necessarily have the same goals, results or motivation. It's unfortunately more complex than that.
I agree that the contradiction disappears if you define "Fiscally Conservative" as "I'm for efficient, low-waste, low-corruption government and $0 deficits and debts." Sounds great. But, often the path to get there requires Big Regulation, Big Social Programs and Big Infrastructure spending to stimulate confidence and growth. Also, if you run into a "Fiscal Conservative", ask them how much they want to cut Defense. If they hesitate to cut it by at least 50%, they don't get to wear the "Fiscal" fig leaf to cover their Conservatism anymore.
@@jones1618 I agree. A lot of so called fiscal conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are merely right wing hawks who cherry pick their targets and use the language of fiscal conservatism to suggest not spending money on things they don't ideologically agree with.
You are not taking the viewpoint into account that free markets and economic growth lift people out of poverty more effectively than redistribution of wealth schemes. You may differ with that opinion, but you can't accuse libertarians of being mean spirited. They just have a different opinion on economics than you do. They may not be entirely correct, but your opinions may not be entirely correct either.
So the only way to help the poor/homeless is to give your money to a government? You do realize that multiple studies have shown that conservatives donate more money than liberals; perhaps because they believe charities handle money better than a big government. For every dollar you give to the government, how much of that do you believe actually makes it to the intended recipient? Now compare that to a charity who has volunteer workers and less bureaucracy (except of course if you’re in a blue state). I know this just counters one of your examples but i mean cmon your argument is ridiculous
But how effective are the charities compared to government programs? You say that people believe they are better because of volunteers and less bureaucracy, but that hardly proof of anything. Counties with stronger social programs have lower rates of poverty and homelessness, because the government can provide housing, healthcare, and comprehensive work training on a scale far beyond charities, and run by professionals who know what they are doing. Which results in those people lifted out of poverty working sooner, working better jobs, and contributing more, both to the economy and in taxes. Charities as the sole social net are a bandaid, not a solution.
Scotts Barbarossa Logic Is there proof to what you said regarding counties with more social programs have less homelessness and poverty? An obvious counterexample, albeit anecdotal, is the state of California which has the highest rate of income tax and the highest rate of poverty in the nation. Compare that to the state of Utah which has a moderate income tax and has taken care of their homeless problem quite well (I would invite you to do some research into that). Regardless of any of this; let’s say you are correct that more social programs equal less poverty and homelessness, that still doesnt counter my point that the ONLY way to be socially liberal is by wanting to raise taxes. You can be socially liberal and still want the government to be more efficient in their spending. Or you can be socially liberal and donate your time/money to local charities. The debate on what is more efficient isn’t relevant in my opinion.
@@taiwanexpat5769 The relevance of effectiveness is dependant what your goal is; if you seek to end homelessness, then how much each process actually does to end homelessness does matter. You bring how much of each dollar goes to the cause in your orginal post, so I am not sure why you now think it is not relevant.
I am not sure what you mean when you are talking about 'social liberal'. First, liberalism is not progressivism or 'the left' and the ideology of liberalism would tend towards charity over government aid. Second, if you mean progressive, are you declaring that progressives believe that charity does not work or that only government spending can fix these issues; again, I am not really clear what you are getting to here.
An interesting example country is Japan, who have public healthcare, public housing, and affordable post secondary education, have very low homelessness rate, but are culturally conservative on issues like marriage, drug use, homosexuality, and fiscal policy. So, yes, a government can be both fiscally and social responsible. Other examples include Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and the US with the New Deal.
There is a moral issue here, as well: government policy sets it as a basic right, along with something like freedom of expression, whereas charity treats as it something those receiving do not deserve, but are getting anyways. Charity should be used for The Pursuit Happiness, not required for Life and Liberty.
@@scottsbarbarossalogic3665 My main argument, which I admittedly may not have made clear in my original comment, was against David Pakman's claim (self evident in the title of the video) that being fiscally conservative and socially liberal (referring to your last comment, I use the term "liberal" as David does in this video; with the examples he used as someone who wants a better environment, less homelessness, and less poverty and is pro-choice as a few examples) "makes no sense". I do not agree with this and do not see any evidence in his video that points towards this claim. He makes this claim by implying in his video that the only way to address social issues is to regulate and tax. I used the example he gave of helping the poor and homeless because that was something that he brought up in his video. Clearly, as I believe we both have agreed on, you can believe in deregulation and less taxes and still be able to help out the poor and homeless (I used Utah as an example which has less regulation, lower taxes, and takes better care of their homeless compared to California which has the highest taxes, a lot of regulation and the highest rate of poverty in the nation). The means by which to BEST help the poor and homeless can be argued against but David seems to be implying that the only way to help the poor and homeless is by raising taxes and regulations. I strongly disagree.
Another example that he gives is the climate crisis. A counter example could be using nuclear power (which produces no green house gases as a by-product); yet the nuclear industry is OVER regulated which is pushing it to become nearly extinct. (Again, this is just an example and not the main argument I am trying to make. Myself and others have brought up nuclear energy in the past to David Pakman and he doesn't seem to interested in it.)
Let me know where I am wrong or if you believe that being fiscally conservative and socially liberal "doesn't make sense". Again, my main argument is against his implication that taxes and regulations are the only means by which social issues can be addressed.
@@taiwanexpat5769 Fair enough. I apologise, but lost the context of the video on the second comment, so that clears that up; thank you.
I think there could be some confusion about what 'help' means. Charity certainly eases the suffering of those in poverty, and I feel that giving back to the community in that way is a fantastic thing to. But does it remove them from poverty, or even give them a path to remove themselves? Consider the Medicare; do you believe that a system like that would work better as a charity? Do you believe that if it was removed, they would be more retired people in poverty?
Believing that people should not suffer, but that the government should not be involved in helping those people is perfectly reasonable, and charity does make sense. And in the way, David is wrong. However, "liberals" don't paying taxes the same way conservatives don't want people to suffer, but both groups have a preference. The "liberal" minded fiscal conservative has decided that keeping their money is more important than moving people out of suffering. From the point of the sufferer, how is that different than someone who does not care about others' suffer at all? They have not put their money where their mouth is. And in that way, with the assumption that David Is making (government programs move people out of poverty), David is correct.
On the point of nuclear power, I would rather that be more regulated for safety than not, for the obvious Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reasons. However, I do not think it is an issue in terms of reducing our carbon footprint, but the arguement I hear is that we would not be able to build enough quickly enough to actually deal with the issue.
Libertarian rebuttals incoming... They are going to say "You want the government to use force, it is on you to justify that. I don't think that is ever justified."
The correct response to that is "without the state you hand the use of force over to whoever has the most power and money. Would you rather have an elected official who is accountable to his/her voters and can be removed in charge, or the head of GlaxoSmithKlein?"
@@ultrademigod
Because they are morons, they will say ""Yes, If you don't like them, take your money else were."
@@theatheistpaladin If they say they truly are morons.
You cannot simply take your money elsewhere, if they're pouring chemicals into the local rivers, or pumping harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, which is what happens when corporations are not held in check by regulations.
@@ultrademigod
With stupid people, you cannot make them realize they are stupid. The whole reason for sticking with simplistic thinking is so that you don't have to deal with nuance. The response will either be sue or tough shit.
Disagree David. Fiscal conservatives like me, want to see balanced budgets. I want to see scrutiny on spending like the military industrial complex. Regarding regulations I want to see sensible regulations but not to the point of hindering the economy.
Investment in our tax dollars back in our communities is not wrong
I disagree with your view.
A person can coherently support both environmental regulations and still oppose deficit spending.Those are two separate things that aren't necessarily related.
All you've done is attribute specific views to the label "fiscal conservative" which make it incompatible with social liberalism. I think that's playing with definitions more than it's a real argument.
If I support:
- the GND
- corporate regulations that protect workers, human rights and the environment
- the right of every person to marry whomever they choose
- equal opportunities in education
- slashing of military spending to 10% of what it is now.
- massively raising taxes on wealth (not income)
- making deficit spending illegal by law (with some flexibility for cyclical economies and emergencies)
Then what am I? Does that not count as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
Essentially...I'm socially liberal, but am against any regulation that may balance or check social inequalities!
Obviously some are principled and get bashed by conservatives, like Tomi Lahren (out of all people) coming out as pro-choice
Adolf loved his dogs and built great roads. Being able to do good and deciding not to is what makes a real monster. Ms Lahren is pro choice because that affects her somehow. So she has an interest in it.
She gets no cookie for that.
@@offroadskater I agree, no cookie for Lahren.
It makes plenty of sense. I don't want the government to interfere with our liberties and I want them to make smart financial decisions, not just spend at the public's whim because it "feels right". I don't want to be like France and have 42 overly generous pensions systems just because people want really good benefits. I don't want the government to be spending so much in unnecessary places with unneeded programs. The government needs to try to make good economic decisions so that everyone can benefit from the strengthened economy.
Spending money =/= unequivocal good for the unfortunate.
David, your arguments are weak. Saying something doesn't make sense because very few people support it isn't logical. The percent of people who are true atheists is small in the US yet it is the most logical position. You can debate the merits of libertarianism but saying it makes no sense and then bringing a set of poor arguments makes your case look terrible.
"socially liberal, fiscally conservative" translates to "I like weed and hate poor people"
And even your characterization of “gay people” seems to imply you may have the same biases that a lot of these sorts of libertarians have about gays, which is to forget that they are not the well-to-do monolithic image created by the media (to push gay marriage as a distraction to the economic-inequality-intensifying time of the Obama era) but rather are often in need of government assistance in order to survive in a relatively socially conservative world that we live in.
I always took "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" to mean someone who cares about social injustices, but also wants to be careful against extravagant, unnecessary excess spending. As somebody who's worked government contracts there is a LOT of waste, I mean literal decades of trillions of dollars down the toilet gone for nothing, people who work in government get awful complacent with a constant drip feed of tax money payrolling them (I should know, I worked with a lot of them). A person could for example support climate change regulations through increased tax penalties on high emission industries, which satisfies both socially liberal and fiscally conservative policy (addresses climate change while increasing government funding), that's at least how I understood it.
I feel that should be an issue of management and budgetary competence rather than politics.
I gotta disagree. There are ways to deal with huge problems like climate change, poor public education, and income inequality. A mixed economy which implores responsible capitalist and responsible socialist policies doesn't necessarily require constant government intervention. Command and control doesn't work, because firms find a way around. Letting markets correct themselves is a better way, it's just that we see too much 'crony capitalism' that people now can't distinguish it from true capitalism.
All economies are mixed, except the U.S. doesn't have responsible capitalist policies and is lacking in responsible socialist policies. Sometimes we need a government to force a change that's financially and morally right - such as the Civil Rights Act.
@@50jakecs good points, I wish there was a way to have little more socialism without less capitalism. I fear we may swing the other way and use socialist policies irresponsibly too. One thing is for sure, we see far too many externalities left uncorrected or fixed cheaply and not thoroughly (Housing crisis, etc.)
I always describe myself this way, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think it can make sense, but it's shades of grey. I believe there is a LOT of waste in government spending, even in programs I support. There is a lot of corruption, there is a lot of money spent on worthless programs. I think our military and troops require the best equipment and investment....but there is a ton of waste and pork belly projects there. I'm against the border wall for 'social reasons,' but it's also a stupid financial ROI. I'm for free trade and globalism as forces to bring the world together and increase the overall wealth in the country, but then you have to have taxes and ways to redistribute the wealth to better assist those whom are displaced by the trade and technological improvements (I think Yang spoke to this really well).
In the end, I think of it like running the country like a company, but a REALLY GOOD company. I think we should made responsable financial decisions and prioritize reinvesting in our country through infrastructure, education, medical care, environmental protection, civil liberty protection, and driving innovation (programs like NASA).
If financially conservative means no regulation and no taxes, maybe that doesn't fit me after all, but it's how I've always labeled my approach.
"What part of Libertarianism do you not like, the part where you have to make decisions for your own life, or the part where you don't get to make decisions about my life."
Exactly! As someone who used to claim to be socially liberal/fiscally conservative I learned over time that the solutions to the problems I genuinely cared about required regulation and tax dollars. I now call myself a progressive.
I love how he describes them as libertarians even though conservativism is literally authoritarian while libertarianism is literally libertarian. This is a terrible representation.
I’m the kind of person who doesn’t make sense. Everyone assumes I’m a liberal till I open my mouth 💀
The future is in renewable energy. Conservative economy and taxes will likely get us there faster..
Your argument presumes that more government is the ONLY way to help the poor or fix the environment. This is wrong. The poor can be helped through private charities and the environment can be improved through technological innovations that arise out of free markets. For example: if someone were to invent a working fission reactor, they'd become massively wealthy and help the environment greatly.
I disagree. I support Bernie. I am fiscally conservative. To me fiscal conservatism means effective and efficient use of tax dollars. It has nothing to do with blind deficit or low taxes. I want smart regulation I want to spend money that gets us the most bang for our buck. For example the military budget is bloated and wasteful. But once cut I would support spending more on cyber terrorism and internet warfare in the military budget. Also medicare for all can save money overall and I think that is the fiscally conservative option
I want marijuana legalized!
Conservative isn’t a bad word and fiscal conservatism doesn’t mean small government or less regulation..you’re just applying the warped conservative tropes of foxnews for way is real conservative values. Maybe the dumbest segment I’ve seen of Pakman. So narrow and non nuanced.
I think this video worries me because you are showing how deeply entrenched in the political game you are. People are not just a side of a spectrum, and by seeing the entire world through that lens, you mentally assign them to a group and don't see them as people. It is a very dangerous mental path to walk down and I was hoping you were not sucked into its grasp.
Interesting. I viewed it in the opposite way - that some people who like to describe themselves as politically being one thing while they do not realise that it doesn't make sense in the real world.
Libertarians define tyranny only as coming from government, and freedom as just “freedom from government”. So if government reins in tyranny from corporations, then that itself is tyranny
I disagree. You assume that the free market doesn't have a vested interest in environmental causes or that the free market isn't the single most successful vehicle for bringing masses of people out of poverty. Further, you assume that the government is capable of achieving these goals. I believe your assumptions and arguments have a proven record of failure (failure in all socialist countries) while the free market has a proven record of success.
It's not a contradiction. Libertarians value freedom over regulations and goverment interference. You can argue that regulations can help achieve the means that Libertarians care about socially but they simply care about ecomonic freedoms more.
Without regulations peoples freedoms and their ability to live a long, healthy, happy life are going to be interfered with.
Big business and the banks will do what they want and tyrannise us as they wish.
They could dump crap in our rivers, pay people a pittance, abolish breaks in the work place, fire people for no reason, put whatever junk they like in our food, mislabel that food if they felt like it, and no one could stop them.
In a capitalist society regulations are necessary.
Tell me you know nothing about Liberty without telling me you know nothing about liberty.
Fiscally conservative doesn’t just means politics, it means you’re not an idiot with money
Carbon tax and private charity
David, I do disagree you. Because YOU disagree with you. Just the other day you said a deal breaker for you when voting is gay marriage as a social issue. Yet here you describe yourself as focusing on economic justice moreso. This is inconsistent. I don't care if two people or even 4 people want to be in a relationship. Doesn't matter if I support that or not. Which I don't. But that's irrelevant. My focus is on economic power and distribution. Of someone say, Bernie was against gay marriage but for all the other things I wouldn't care. No one NEEDS to get married. But everyone does need healthcare, access to quality education and housing. These are more important. So in this video you contradict yourself from a few videos prior.
Just pointing that out.
I’m personally a social fascist and a fiscal anarchist.
The "fiscally conservative" talking point often only applies to welfare spending, anyway. It usually flies out the window the moment you talk about military spending or corporatism (or corporate socialism). That's why we have tasty nuggets like the fact that there are thousands of tanks sitting around in the Nevada desert and other places, being completely useless... because the fiscally conservatives in Congress couldn't bring themselves to cut military spending - despite the Pentagon itself saying it doesn't want any more tanks. What a waste of resources.
You assume that government subsidies, welfare programs, etc are good for social rights. Fiscal conservatism applies to the economics. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I'm concerned about how boxed in policy has become according to labels. This is an incredibly dangerous path we're doing down and have been for some time.. which has led to the mess we have today.
Yeah when the labels are in place, it sounds contradictory. But there are ways that private sectors can implement climate change initiatives, with some gov taxes here and there to sway people In Certain directions. But subsidies, bailouts, high budgets, polarization. Dangerous waters.
It's now 2025 and this pipe dream still exists on social media.
I disagree. Most regulations and taxes don't actually achieve their intended purpose or are just poorly managed, you can be someone that is socially liberal who wants taxes that lower inequality, help the environment, but still be for a largely free market approach. You're being to general in your understanding of what this kind of person is about.
Whenever I hear the word "Libertarian" I think of that scene with the Jewish rebels from Monty Python and the Life of Brian. They're sitting in a room, plotting rebellion, talking about how awful the Romans are... except for all the great things the Romans have done for them. It's literally the entire Libertarian argument. We hate the government, and everything it stands for and we want to destroy it, but we still want to get to keep the things that the government does that are OK.
"Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US!?!?!?!"
ua-cam.com/video/Y7tvauOJMHo/v-deo.html
I pointed out to my brother in law that lake County Illinois voted for trump and he was claiming the same argument. They like to claim liberalism but reap the benefits of conservative fiscal policies.
I think you've missed what liberalism is mate
I disagree with that stance. I don’t think you need regulation to address poor populations. That’s a culture issue. I can feel for the poor and not want to give half my earnings away to what is largely caused by poor decision making.
Same with the environment. Even with all the hysteria around Trump gutting the EPA and leaving the Paris Climate Accord, the US leads the world in lowering emissions.
On health care, I prefer to have full control of what I spend my money on. I don’t agree that everyone should be ok with giving up a significant chunk of their pay so that other people can have free healthcare. There’s an argument to be made that deregulation of the health care industry and better training early on in life would do more to fix health care than anything the government could come up with.
On top of that, the government spends money like its water with next to no real common sense or accountability. Its size means that everything it has its hands on is plagued by inefficiency. The only thing the government is good at is meddling in foreign affairs. Otherwise, there isn’t one branch, or government organization that does anything well. I don’t want a DMV experience when I go to a doctor.
I'm a Christian and socially conservative and fiscally liberal :)
I once honestly believed I leaned libertarian. But then I realized I'm actually just technocratic and libertarians are insanely ideological.
As an example, I think the government should run public safety, healthcare and infrastructure. Not because I like big government, but because I want the most efficient method to provide public goods. I am "fiscally conservative" in the sense that I don't want to waste money on inefficient ideological approaches.
There is zero evidence that those are run more efficiently by government. In fact one could say there is plenty of evidence to say they are the most inefficient.
The problem David is you are working within a binary paradigm.
To many people, "socially liberal" means legal abortion, marriage equality, legal drugs, and things like that. Those positions are compatible with being "fiscally conservative".
Horrible point you made.
I'm a Canadian and i consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We are so much farther ahead and have won so many of the battles progressive Americans are fighting for now, universal health care, maternity leave, cheaper prescription drugs, legalized marijuana, access to abortion, cheaper post secondary education and on and on and on. These things are baked into the cake for Canadians and we would lose our shit if these things were clawed back. Canada has also proven you can have these types of programs and have balanced budgets and even surpluses. But over the past 4 years of liberal government we have added something like over 100 billion dollars to our debt and being a Canadian fiscal conservative i don't think its a very good idea to be adding up that type of crushing debt for future generations to pay off with either higher taxes or severe budget cuts.
Wish David would talk about that socially conservative, fiscally liberal portion of the population more; that seems like an interesting phenomenon. I wonder, is there even a name for that? What would that even be called?
*Just a Joke* Catholics. Love and help the poor, and maybe the environment, but no marriage equality or abortions.
Hey David,
I think the big problem with, "politics," is that we never address the layers of government, we just shoehorn everything into one big, "government," topic. We have federal, state, and local governments in the United States. My take on these layers is that the further the representation is from my living room, the less power they should have over me.
I think that the federal government should be a protector/enforcer of constitutional rights and economic regulations. It should provide oversight over state governments. It should also be the main defense against foreign entities.
States should be where the social programs happen, again, with federal oversight to make sure that people aren't getting robbed by the state governments. We've seen examples of state social programs being far superior to federal or even free market solutions. The great thing is that we can run 50 different experiments to determine which particular systems work best, then shift over to using those systems. With one big federal system, we'll pretty much be stuck with whatever train wreck the corrupt federal politicians and their lobbyists put together.
Which brings me to my main issue with federal government... corruption. Everything that the federal government touches gets corrupted. There's simply too much money at stake, and little/no oversight. The more power we give to the federal government to allocate money, the more lobbyists show up to vie for that money. Why would anyone want more federal social programs after they've seen what the current government has done with social security and healthcare?
You can be economically conservative and understand that our current implementation of capitalism is broken. Most importantly, the idea of the government picking winners and losers is just insanity. Subsidies and bailouts go against economic conservatism, and directly lead to corruption. Republicans might be for such things, but true economic conservatives are not.
If you want a succinct example of where I believe that social liberalism and economic conservatism can go hand in hand, then how about this... If you want to fix our current economic system, the first thing to do would be to enact an economic, "prime directive," law. US businesses can only do business with other countries that have rights/laws similar to our own. That would even the global playing field and do away with a lot of the foreign exploitation that happens at the hands of American corporations. It would put an end to cheap foreign labor and it would put an end to supporting foreign dictators in order to exploit their resources. China and Saudi Arabia would have to find someone else to prop up their evil regimes.
Regarding climate change, I'm tired of talking about it. Regardless of my opinion on the subject, I'm down with eliminating fossil fuel consumption, and with being stewards of the environment. I think any/all environmental protection at the federal level should be done strictly through regulation/law, and not through subsidies, taxes, tax credits, etc. Again, money is the tool of corruption.
Understand that these are only tidbits of my own social liberal/fiscal conservative ideas. As with other political views, there's a whole package that fits together, with way too much depth to cover in a response to a video. Also, like all political views, it's not perfect.
I support decentralization. That means a bigger state and local government and small federal government. I think that more issues should be addressed and solve by their respective state or local governments as opposed to federal level.
It's the illusion that people are rational and moral. It assumes that the social problems will solve themselves
There is lack of clarification in your argument in definitions of a) rights b) social liberalism and c) fiscal conservationism and how these terms are in contradiction. There's nothing to dispute because there's no coherent argument presented here.
I don't make enough money to be fiscally conservative. Ask me again when I make my first billion.
How about instead of throwing out worthless titles, we actually analyse each policy and see the ones we are “fiscally liberal” or “fiscally conservative” on.
There are some applications where I don’t think the government should spend money and vice versa. This describes fucking everyone, so let’s talk about the policies instead
I’m socially conservative but fiscally liberal.
Homelessness is easy, just round them up and send them to labor colony/re-education. Then provide resources to get on their feet, or else they’ll return to the camp.
I'm a progressive that doesn't think free college is the best use of resources. But I think single payer healthcare does since it will reduce total costs. Does that make me fiscally conservative?
Bravo. These types of people are basically Republicans who do not want the social backlash.
Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative makes great sense. In fact, it's the best policy.
What is Conservative should be at issue here. Spending wisely and expecting a return on the spending while always protecting our future prospects is what Conservative should stand for.
Liberal/Conservative, Left/Right don't mean much anymore.
Talk issues.
Libertarians: Corporate executives earned the right to your labor through your consent
Everyone else: So does that mean what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was consensual?
Libertarians: ...
“Economic justice”