Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I’m willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren’t really okay with peeing in bottles because they don’t have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.
Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn’t mean I want less taxes, I’m in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don’t have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn’t make sense and there’s no indication it’s working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me…
Nothing about what you describe has even the slightest thing to do with conservatism though, so I don’t know why you would describe that as being “fiscal conservative”.
One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?
100%. I want to loudly point out that you saying ‘jailing poor people not isn’t fiscally responsible and doesn’t benefit society, the money would be better spent giving people a better shot at success’ is a great example of social liberal (make society better) and fiscal conservative (don’t spend money on stupid things).
But if we didn’t criminalize poor people, how well we justify spending billions on privately owned for profit prisons!?! You didn’t think of the stock holders! /s
As someone who has used the term before.
Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I’m willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren’t really okay with peeing in bottles because they don’t have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.
Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn’t mean I want less taxes, I’m in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don’t have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn’t make sense and there’s no indication it’s working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me…
Nothing about what you describe has even the slightest thing to do with conservatism though, so I don’t know why you would describe that as being “fiscal conservative”.
Maybe not what it means currently in America. But in general it sounds fiscally conservative to me.
One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?
100%. I want to loudly point out that you saying ‘jailing poor people not isn’t fiscally responsible and doesn’t benefit society, the money would be better spent giving people a better shot at success’ is a great example of social liberal (make society better) and fiscal conservative (don’t spend money on stupid things).
But if we didn’t criminalize poor people, how well we justify spending billions on privately owned for profit prisons!?! You didn’t think of the stock holders! /s
By chance are you talking about Surrey BC?
Afraid not.
I hear a closeted MAGA.
You need to get your hearing checked.