Is it possible to be a social libertarian but not an economic one?

hatrickpatrick

I suppose a legal "libertine" might make more sense although that implies something about a person's own lifestyle which isn't necessarily true. Basically I don't believe the government should ever have the right to legislate on lifestyles which have no effects on people who don't consent to them - ergo I think gay marriage, polygamy, drugs, etc should all be legal for consenting adults. I always assumed this made me a libertarian, but I'm definitely very economically left wing in that I believe in free healthcare, free education, etc funded with public money. So therefore I apparently can't take the libertarian label as they are right wing economically as well as left wing socially. I can't call myself a "liberal" because they generally do support social legalism in the form of the nanny state - laws on public indecency, censorship, political correctness, etc.

So what am I? Is there even a name for my brand of philosophy or am I just an incredibly strange and unusual person who has no like minded group to campaign for? :P

EDIT: Just to clarify my social beliefs, I don't believe in "victimless crime". That is, you should have the right to life however way you want - provided you don't interfere with someone else's right to do exactly the same. So things like violence are still banned because they infringe someone else's right not to be injured and not to be attacked, and robbery is still banned because it interferes with someone's right to their own belongings.

Blisterman

I'd hazard an uninformed guess and say that that sounds more like a classical liberal. Before it became synonomous with Left wing and political correctness.

hatrickpatrick

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd hazard an uninformed guess and say that that sounds more like a classical liberal. Before it became synonomous with Left wing and political correctness.

I'm always a little nervous about using the word liberal though simply because a lot of people - particularly those who follow American politics - equate liberal with the economic "communism lite" type policy of nationalizing everything, taxes of 70% etc etc etc, and therefore have little to no respect for "liberals" - which really annoys me since I always assume the word "liberal", given that it's based on "liberty", would in fact imply that you DON'T want "big government". But you have these people in the US protesting Obama's "government interference" whilst also campaigning to have gay rights / abortion / medicine advocates killed and what not... So clearly the word "conservative" has very unpleasant social connotations.

I mean in Ireland is you imply right wing or conservative you're regarded as a holier than thou, anti action-movie, anti videogame contraception-ban advocate who supports the pre 1900 Catholic hegemony, which I, although I am a Catholic, am completely opposed to. So "conservative" definitely isn't a label I can subscribe to either.

Sorry if this is a bit convoluted - it could simply be that there aren't many who share my blend of ideas and therefore no one has bothered to give them a name yet...

Shnitszer

OP, you might be a Libertarian Socialist?

Lockstep

Shnitszer wrote: »

OP, you might be a Libertarian Socialist?

Beat me to it.

You sound like a libertarian socialist allright.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Money doesn't have the right to be free from government interference, people do. I call myself a social libertarian to distinguish myself from those who are economic libertarians.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it is an example of poor government decisions, and decisions taken in a climate of liberal economics. Now, maybe it is possible to have a laissez-faire monetary policy AND have interest rates which discourage bubble-blowing credit, but tbh I think they've had enough chances. In the area of lending and banking, they have proven again that they cannot be trusted to be responsible. It is no co-incidence that this depresion started shortly after Bill Clinton liberalised the regulation in the US; it is time for stricter regulation of the financial sector, not less. I don't know too much about economics, but it just doesn't seem feasible to me that some countries had over a quarter of their economies relying on financial services.

If everyone was as competent, intelligent, sensible and thorough as you, your ideas would probably work well, but the simple fact is they aren't, and I think that a very large part of the cause of the crash was the un-regulated actions of over-convident, under-competent bankers/stockbroker/lenders/credit companies, etc, who didn't really understand what they were doing (or did, but gambled).

I'd rather have the economic freedom of (in practical terms) a few slightly restricted than have the situation we have now, where people who didn't take stupid risks are suffering for those who did- people like me, actually.

I can't help but look to countries like Norway, Germany and France, whose economies aren't as open as Ireland, the US and UK, but who are now suffering less, and take on board that part of the reason they're not in dire straits is because they didn't jump into the capitalist rat race as deeply as the latters did.

nyarlothothep

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It is no co-incidence that this depresion started shortly after Bill Clinton liberalised the regulation in the US;

I believe that law was signed into effect around the great depression, so that such an economic crisis would never happen again. Pretty laughable how every generation thinks they're at the end of history.

I think we're in a depression as opposed to a recession or maybe we're in denial so it would be a repression.

Kama

So what am I? Is there even a name for my brand of philosophy or am I just an incredibly strange and unusual person who has no like minded group to campaign for?

Libertarian socialism tend to indicate an anarchist disposition (the origin of the libertarian name stemmed from state repression of anarchists in France, requiring a 'figleaf'), so if you lack the general anti-statist tendency the term may be a misnomer.

And no you're not alone, I'm of similar leanings myself.

Soldie

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think it is an example of poor government decisions, and decisions taken in a climate of liberal economics.

Can you explain what you mean by a "climate of liberal economics"?

Now, maybe it is possible to have a laissez-faire monetary policy AND have interest rates which discourage bubble-blowing credit, but tbh I think they've had enough chances. In the area of lending and banking, they have proven again that they cannot be trusted to be responsible. It is no co-incidence that this depresion started shortly after Bill Clinton liberalised the regulation in the US; it is time for stricter regulation of the financial sector, not less. I don't know too much about economics, but it just doesn't seem feasible to me that some countries had over a quarter of their economies relying on financial services.

The Bill Clinton administration incentivised the purchase of property through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This, coupled with a policy of providing cheap credit via expansion of the money supply, inflated an enormous property bubble. This is not an example of "liberal economics" -- it is one of many examples of government intervention having unintended adverse consequences. Having said that, I agree with you entirely that they cannot be trusted to be responsible, and that is why I'd like to see the gold standard reintroduced to replace fiat money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it is accurate to say that the roots of the depression began with the increasing de-regulation of financial services. The depression is the result of a bubble. the bubble was caused by market mania which is inevitable if there is no regulation

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Imo Akrasia overstates the case; even from a Marxist angle, the deregulation of financial instruments would be more symptom than cause of the current 'cession or overproduction crisis.

We have business cycles of boom and bust as a (relatively) regular feature of the world economy, we have the role of the money supply and Fed, deregulation of financial interests and the systematic underpricing of risk; and onto the multicausal mess, we tend to unerringly assume that it was all the fault of whichever 'enemies' are psychologically and ideologically convenient.

So we do live in the happiest of all worlds; one in which its always someone elses fault...