Is it incoherent to be socially liberal while economically authoritarian?

  • Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date
In summary: Heh, sounds like you're the exact opposite of me. I am socially rather conservative, but liberal on almost all other issues, and very liberal in terms of economics. It's rather amusing to unify both parties against myself.
  • #1
superwolf
184
0
I'm often being criticised because I in politics am liberal when it comes to social issues, and more authoritarian when it comes to economics. Why is less coherent than being authoritarian in economic issues and liberal in social issues? And what's the point of being coherent at all?Why is coherency better than non-coherency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
lot of problems in our politics come from this "game plan" of social issues. Many peopl decide at what point which "team" they are on, then take on the entire package that comes with that team. So if you support gun ownership, then you are also against abortion, against socialized medicine, for the death penalty, against gay marriage, etc etc. Each of these issues is a separate thing and can be judged individually.

I'm guessing that your critics can't figure out which "team" you are on.
 
  • #3
I agree with Chi. In fact, as an Independent, I don't belong to either major US political party.

However, in the modern context, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism can be mutually exclusive. Often the choice is between a socially liberal solution, or a fiscally conservative solution.
 
  • #4
Go with whatever you feel is right in any category. If that forces you to choose a party, go with the one that best represents your opinions. My grandparents were all dead before I was born, but my mother told me what her mother told her: vote with your conscience.
 
  • #5
superwolf said:
I'm often being criticised because I in politics am liberal when it comes to social issues, and more authoritarian when it comes to economics. Why is less coherent than being authoritarian in economic issues and liberal in social issues? And what's the point of being coherent at all?Why is coherency better than non-coherency?
Social freedom and economic control is the standard "liberal" position. How is that considered incoherent? The standard "conservative" position is social control and economic freedom, the standard "libertarian" position is social freedom and economic freedom, and the standard "authoritarian" position is social control and economic control. They are all coherent political philosophies.

Moderates are a little harder to figure out. I suppose someone could have a coherent political philosophy that would lead to moderate results on the social and economic scales, but I haven't seen one articulated.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Danger said:
My grandparents were all dead before I was born, but my mother told me what her mother told her: vote with your conscience.

Alas, this is discouraging news indeed, but the war is not over yet.
 
  • #7
Chi Meson said:
lot of problems in our politics come from this "game plan" of social issues. Many peopl decide at what point which "team" they are on, then take on the entire package that comes with that team. So if you support gun ownership, then you are also against abortion, against socialized medicine, for the death penalty, against gay marriage, etc etc. Each of these issues is a separate thing and can be judged individually.

So true!
 
  • #8
superwolf said:
I'm often being criticised because I in politics am liberal when it comes to social issues, and more authoritarian when it comes to economics. Why is less coherent than being authoritarian in economic issues and liberal in social issues? And what's the point of being coherent at all?Why is coherency better than non-coherency?

Heh, sounds like you're the exact opposite of me. I am socially rather conservative, but liberal on almost all other issues, and very liberal in terms of economics. It's rather amusing to unify both parties against myself.
 
  • #9
DaleSpam said:
Social freedom and economic control is the standard "liberal" position.

I'd dispute that. That is true for modern/social liberalism, but not classical liberalism, which is on the other side of economic freedom (overlapping with libertarianism, according to some). I'm not even sure what the word 'liberalism' means, exactly: for instance, the pro-free-market position is "economic liberalism", yet it is predominantly a conservative position (and also classical liberal) - and in fact social liberalism is at its core economically illiberal!

Moderates are a little harder to figure out. I suppose someone could have a coherent political philosophy that would lead to moderate results on the social and economic scales, but I haven't seen one articulated.

Pragmatism? The idea that "optimal" policy reflects not a pure application of an abstract ideology, but a balancing among mutually contradictory goals - which cannot be simultaneously satisfied - and the maximum of the sum of the component utility functions is somewhere near the center of parameter space?
 
  • #10
arunma said:
I am socially rather conservative, but liberal on almost all other issues, and very liberal in terms of economics.
That is a standard authoritarian position: government control of both social and economic life.
 
  • #11
signerror said:
I'd dispute that. That is true for modern/social liberalism, but not classical liberalism, which is on the other side of economic freedom (overlapping with libertarianism, according to some).
This is correct. I was referring to modern liberalism as typically understood in today's "left vs. right" debates. Classical liberalism is, as you mention, closer to today's libertarianism.

signerror said:
Pragmatism? The idea that "optimal" policy reflects not a pure application of an abstract ideology, but a balancing among mutually contradictory goals - which cannot be simultaneously satisfied - and the maximum of the sum of the component utility functions is somewhere near the center of parameter space?
That is not a coherent philosophy because you cannot use it to determine the stance on a given issue. Let's take recreational drug use for example, liberals and libertarians would let it be legal (social freedom) while conservatives and authoritarians would make it illegal (social control). All four positions are coherent, you can boil down the broad philosophies to a specific position on a given issue.

For moderates, should recreational drug use be legal or not? How do you determine the "pragmatic" or "optimal" stance? In optimization language, what is your cost function? If a moderate could clearly articulate an "optimality" criterion that could be used to make such policy decisions then that criterion would be the underlying coherent philosophy. I'm sure it is possible, I just have never seen in done.
 
  • #12
I think abortion is murder and that meat isn't. Does that make me a social conservative? Liberals call me a fascist. I also think that pot should be legal and governmental racial discrimination illegal. Does that make me a social liberal? Conservatives call me a socialist. I am well aware of the various procrustean beds that others would have me lie in. But I don't, and you shouldn't either.
 
  • #13
jimmysnyder said:
I think abortion is murder and that meat isn't. Does that make me a social conservative? Liberals call me a fascist. I also think that pot should be legal and governmental racial discrimination illegal. Does that make me a social liberal? Conservatives call me a socialist. I am well aware of the various procrustean beds that others would have me lie in. But I don't, and you shouldn't either.

I'll always call you Jimmy. Hey, you could find Jimmyism and make buck or two in the process.
 
  • #14
misgfool said:
I'll always call you Jimmy.
Sometimes I am liberal and sometimes I am conservative, but I am always Jimmy.
 
  • #15
misgfool said:
Alas, this is discouraging news indeed

Not really. In normal circumstances, I suppose that a lack of grandparents might be considered tragic. My case is different. My mother was the youngest of 13 kids, and she's 96. That would mean that my grandmother would be about 140 now if she was still around. She died a few months before I was born. (My dad was the second oldest of 13, and was coincidentally 13 years older than my mother.)
 
  • #16
Danger said:
Not really. In normal circumstances, I suppose that a lack of grandparents might be considered tragic. My case is different. My mother was the youngest of 13 kids, and she's 96. That would mean that my grandmother would be about 140 now if she was still around. She died a few months before I was born. (My dad was the second oldest of 13, and was coincidentally 13 years older than my mother.)

I'm sorry for your grandparents, but I was referring to the voting advice. In my opinion we should vote with reason instead of conscience.
 
  • #17
You can't help people unless you have the means to help them.
 
  • #18
misgfool said:
I was referring to the voting advice. In my opinion we should vote with reason instead of conscience.

Pardon the misunderstanding. :redface:
Personally, though, I don't see a difference between reason and conscience. My conscience is guided by reason, and vice versa. I can't separate the two. (Maybe it's because of being amidextrous... :uhh:)
 
  • #19
But in court, wouldn't it be wrong if the judges didn't apply the same principles and rules in all cases?
 
  • #20
On a jurisdictional level, that is correct. Unfortunately, jurisdictions vary as to what constitutes a crime and what the appropriate punishment is.
 
  • #21
But how can a standard liberal position be justified philosophically, when you don't apply the same arguments in economic and social issues?
 
  • #22
jimmysnyder said:
I think abortion is murder and that meat isn't.

You take a life in both cases. Difference is, the latter is conscious and is theerefore able to suffer. An embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells with the potential to develop into a human being. But potential itself isn't an argument. If that was the case, it would be immoral to do anything but making babies all the time.
 

1. Is it possible to be socially liberal and economically authoritarian at the same time?

Yes, it is possible for someone to hold socially liberal beliefs while also advocating for authoritarian economic policies. This may seem contradictory, as social liberalism typically promotes individual rights and freedoms, while economic authoritarianism involves strict government control and regulation of the economy. However, individuals may prioritize different aspects of their political beliefs and may hold a mix of liberal and authoritarian views.

2. How do social liberalism and economic authoritarianism intersect?

Social liberalism and economic authoritarianism intersect in their potential impact on society and individuals. Both ideologies involve government intervention in some form, whether it be through regulation of the economy or protection of individual rights. Additionally, both can have the potential to bring about significant societal changes and have implications for the distribution of wealth and power.

3. Are there any real-life examples of countries that are socially liberal but economically authoritarian?

Yes, there are countries that can be considered socially liberal while also having authoritarian economic policies. One example is China, which has a strict authoritarian government and tightly controls its economy, but has also made strides in social issues such as gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.

4. What are the main criticisms of being socially liberal and economically authoritarian?

The main criticism of this combination of beliefs is that it can lead to a lack of consistency in one's political ideology. Some may argue that it is not possible to support individual rights and freedoms while also advocating for strict government control of the economy. Others may criticize the potential for abuse of power in an authoritarian economic system.

5. Can someone's political beliefs change over time, leading to a shift from socially liberal to economically authoritarian?

Yes, it is possible for someone's political beliefs to change and evolve over time. This could result in a shift from being socially liberal to economically authoritarian, or vice versa. Life experiences, exposure to new ideas, and changing societal trends can all impact an individual's political ideology.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
985
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
819
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
13
Views
378
Back
Top