Santorum

#476
#476
GAVol said:
Like what? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the thought process because I genuinely don't get where along the line social conservatism got tied to big spending anymore than any other line of thinking.
Click to expand...

isupporting smaller govt in taxes and spending, but supporting the (not everyone obviously) legislation of morality.
 
#477
#477
GAVol said:
Like what? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the thought process because I genuinely don't get where along the line social conservatism got tied to big spending anymore than any other line of thinking.
Click to expand...

if just limited to the spending side then it doesn't really affect it. However when looking at the govt's role as a whole, social conservatism does expand it
 
#479
#479
volinbham said:
I guess it comes down to one's proclivity to use the government to enforce social conservatism. If you are socially conservative but don't advocate laws forcing those beliefs/policies on others then it is consistent with small government.

If you want govt. subsidies for being married, want laws against certain otherwise legal sex acts, etc. then it's not consistent with small govt. IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'd say I fall into category #1. Though I can see a benefit to the government supporting marriage. I agree with you about the bedroom cop stuff though.
 
#481
#481
utvolpj said:
if just limited to the spending side then it doesn't really affect it. However when looking at the govt's role as a whole, social conservatism does expand it
Click to expand...

I guess I just think that there's a difference between governing based on socially conservative positions and actually imposing a theocracy.
 
#482
#482
nbakerld said:
Because a government that forces religious views on the populace is not small government.
Click to expand...

Like I just posted. I don't think social conservatism has to automatically equate to imposing views on anyone.
 
#483
#483
GAVol said:
Like what? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the thought process because I genuinely don't get where along the line social conservatism got tied to big spending anymore than any other line of thinking.
Click to expand...

No, it's not big government in the sense that it relates to big spending. "Big" is describing the government's power. Legislating morality expands the role of government, thus making it bigger.

Come to think of it, if we design a law intended to prevent sodomy, there will be a monetary cost, unless you don't plan on enforcing the law. So in that sense, it is related to spending.
 
#484
#484
GAVol said:
I guess I just think that there's a difference between governing based on socially conservative positions and actually imposing a theocracy.
Click to expand...


what is governing - that's the big question. If it's the POTUS espousing those principles it's one thing. If it becomes legislation then it's another.

both sides legislate morality without a doubt.

small government defined as not legislating morality is a myth.
 
#485
#485
I think it's pretty realistic to see Santorum pandering to the social-conservatives while in office.
 
#486
#486
GAVol said:
Like I just posted. I don't think social conservatism has to automatically equate to imposing views on anyone.
Click to expand...

I agree:

Ron Paul - the social conservative nobody fears (not for his social conservatism, anyways

Rick Santorum - the social conservative people fear
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#487
#487
volinbham said:
what is governing - that's the big question. If it's the POTUS espousing those principles it's one thing. If it becomes legislation then it's another.

both sides legislate morality without a doubt.

small government defined as not legislating morality is a myth.
Click to expand...

?
 
#488
#488
So if Santorum does get elected what specifically will he do to impose his religious views on every person in America? Why does no one complain when the left imposes their views on us?
 
#491
#491
GAVol said:
It's a myth because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every change to the tax code comes with a corresponding change in behavior for instance.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm even more confused.

How can you say a definition is a myth? A definition is the meaning people associate with a word. If 1 person associates legislating morality with big government, than it can't be said that that definition is a myth. It could be wrong, but it's not a myth.

Since basically all traditional conservatives equate moral legislation to big government, I'd say that definition is valid.
 
#492
#492
nbakerld said:
Now, I'm even more confused.

How can you say a definition is a myth? A definition is the meaning people associate with a word. If 1 person associates legislating morality with big government, than it can't be said that that definition is a myth. It could be wrong, but it's not a myth.

Since basically all traditional conservatives equate moral legislation to big government, I'd say that definition is valid.
Click to expand...

the definition or ideal isn't a myth but the reality is that all laws or even lack of laws governing behavior have some underlying moral basis.

Even pure libertarianism is a government based in a particular morality.

Got a go for a while.
 
#493
#493
volinbham said:
the definition or ideal isn't a myth but the reality is that all laws or even lack of laws governing behavior have some underlying moral basis.

Even pure libertarianism is a government based in a particular morality.

Got a go for a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but within libertarianism the morality is really just basic ethics that nobody can object to. Don't kill and don't steal. It's not for moral reasons, it's to protect individual liberty. Whether or not that brings about a "moral" society is not the point. Drug prohbition is intended to bring about a "moral" society.
 
#494
#494
But wouldn't the laissez faire social attitude be the morality imposed by a Libertarian society?
 
#495
#495
are freedoms actually "imposed" on people? My opinion would be no but I guess they could be
 
#497
#497
GAVol said:
But wouldn't the laissez faire social attitude be the morality imposed by a Libertarian society?
Click to expand...

It can definitely be viewed that way, but it's not about imposing beliefs, it's about allowing people to choose for themselves. When people talk about "legislating morality" they are talking about the imposition of beliefs.
 
#498
#498
utvolpj said:
are freedoms actually "imposed" on people? My opinion would be no but I guess they could be
Click to expand...

Maybe "espoused" would have been a better word. My point is that everything that happens in government is advocated by someone who thinks it's the right/moral thing to do.
 
#499
#499
GAVol said:
Maybe "espoused" would have been a better word. My point is that everything that happens in government is advocated by someone who thinks it's the right/moral thing to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, but nobody knows what the "right/moral" thing is, so the default should be to allow people to choose for themselves. The morality of libertarianism is that we are willing to admit we aren't smart enough to know what's good for the general public. Nobody does, but libertarians are the ones ones who aren't arrogant enough to think they do know what's best for society. That's what the whole philosophy is predicated upon.
 
#500
#500
Santorum said himself that he is staunchly against the growing libertarian movement within the republican party. that alone is reason for me to vote against him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top