Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, Taxes, Trump, Clinton and Weed

[Sgt. Napalm]

[media]https://youtu.be/nGAO100hYcQ[/media]

A longer video, but an interesting discussion.

[Raidyr]

Pretty great video. I've always respected Penn even if I don't necessarily agree with his politics. I think he lays out exactly why people have a hard time getting into Libertarianism though when he just concedes the points about schools, roads, and welfare. I don't know if he did it for brevity or because the Libertarian position just genuinely doesn't have an answer for these problems, but I really don't think most Americans would trade any of these to lower corporate welfare. It's cool that I'm not being taxed as high and that those taxes aren't going to people who really don't need it but on the other hand I have to choose between paying for school or paying for food for my kid and the road to the private school is in disrepair because there is no financial impetus to keep it maintained.

The social aspect of Libertarianism I can totally get around; I've had a "Who cares" about things like sexuality and drugs for as long as I've had a political identity. I've never done drugs and very rarely drink, and I think potheads are some of the most insufferable people I've meant, but I certainly don't think they should be imprisoned for getting high.

I'm biased but I also completely agree with his perspective on American politics and it's refreshing to hear an argument from someone who clearly dislikes both party candidates at least concede that while she is bad, Clinton is still better than Trump in at least some regards. I also agree with his idea of a brilliant conversation would be Sanders and Johnson debating the role and size of government, though I do wonder if after 4 years of Sanders policy if Penn would still be happy since a lot of what Sanders proposes goes against basic Libertarian values. That said, I do get a feeling that he is genuine in his respect for Sanders as someone who is actually willing to talk policy about making government work for the people.

[Thlis]

His financial ideas are absurd.

When the idea of tipping someone for services is a hot debate you want to have roadworks/healthcare/military/scientific funding to be dependent on the whim of the public?

Why would big companies pay for the entire country's police when they could just hire security firms for themselves for cheaper?

What leads to less corruption, universally gathered funds for government departments, or larger funds given by a smaller group of wealthy individuals?

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50932243]Pretty great video. I've always respected Penn even if I don't necessarily agree with his politics. I think he lays out exactly why people have a hard time getting into Libertarianism though when he just concedes the points about schools, roads, and welfare. I don't know if he did it for brevity or because the Libertarian position just genuinely doesn't have an answer for these problems, but I really don't think most Americans would trade any of these to lower corporate welfare. It's cool that I'm not being taxed as high and that those taxes aren't going to people who really don't need it but on the other hand I have to choose between paying for school or paying for food for my kid and the road to the private school is in disrepair because there is no financial impetus to keep it maintained.

The social aspect of Libertarianism I can totally get around; I've had a "Who cares" about things like sexuality and drugs for as long as I've had a political identity. I've never done drugs and very rarely drink, and I think potheads are some of the most insufferable people I've meant, but I certainly don't think they should be imprisoned for getting high.

I'm biased but I also completely agree with his perspective on American politics and it's refreshing to hear an argument from someone who clearly dislikes both party candidates at least concede that while she is bad, Clinton is still better than Trump in at least some regards. I also agree with his idea of a brilliant conversation would be Sanders and Johnson debating the role and size of government, though I do wonder if after 4 years of Sanders policy if Penn would still be happy since a lot of what Sanders proposes goes against basic Libertarian values. That said, I do get a feeling that he is genuine in his respect for Sanders as someone who is actually willing to talk policy about making government work for the people.[/QUOTE]

I [I]don't[/I] respect Penn, for exactly the positions you've laid out.

He's one of the many "Champagne Libertarians," who want to somehow springboard us from the current 'decent' spot society is in now, in to their Libertarian utopia in a way that is entirely incoherent. They always couch this in the inane platitude that he starts this video with, "I don't think anyone else knows what's best for someone else."

While it's [I]nice[/I] to argue the "who cares" avenue of social liberty, it breaks down in a lot of ways in the face of society, particularly when you argue that people should just be held, "personally accountable." I'm absolutely certain that we would love to hold accountable the litters of children raised in poverty who turn to crime, not because they see it as "easy" but because they have no other choice. I'm positive we would love to hold accountable people who take bathsalts and then rip the faces off of random strangers. It's a damn shame that by then, a great deal of irrecoverable damage is already done.

The reason that we're in a place where there's such a libertarian zeitgeist right now, is because there are a lot of harmless elements that are under a dark penumbra of illegality or new legality with a lot of social question marks hovering over them. Things like homosexuality and marijuana. There's no clear harm to society by making these legal, so let's steam ahead. However, in the same turn, I genuinely don't believe people should be able to freely buy Oxycontin, heroin or methamphetamine over the counter. There's a point where the damage to society is too great, and that saying, "do as thou will shall be the whole of the law," is a sort of bourgeois chauvinism that presumes all people will be equally educated, responsible, and willing to accept the consequences of their actions when even the current unequal state of our society puts the lie to that.

I could go on, but for the most part, the thing that Libertarians lay claim to as their greatest treasure, that is, [B]personal liberty,[/B] can be found in plenty of other philosophies and political ideologies, with a far greater deal of nuance and articulation than, "hey, let's just trust that [nebulous financially interest entities]* will respond to the needs of the people and satisfy the free market! [I]Woohoo![/I]" To be entirely frank, [I]Fascism[/I] keeps personal autonomy (derived from the possession of power) squarely in the center of it's playing court, and I don't see anyone suggesting that perhaps we should become a nation of Crypto-Fascists vying to elect the strongest chancellor.

I'm going to further bash this video, just a bit more, with a quote from around 4:20,

"Please do what you want, try not to hurt me."

It's a shame that in a society where everybody's interests are their own, where there is no compulsive civil protection, there is nobody to readily, or even un-readily, respond to threats to the individual's welfare, particularly when it's the public rowing against that welfare. All I hear when people invoke that argument are the hoofbeats of the Regulators tearing through the rural southern states in the early 1800's, burning down banks and seizing taxes from the dirty revenuers, fighting against what they perceived as federal overreach and financial corruption. They were living that particular Libertarian dream, protecting their own persons and interests against some nebulous sort of aggression that was 'hurting' them, all while building up their own local interests in the name of personal liberty.

*There are some Libertarians who argue that corporations and monopolies [I]only[/I] exist because of government intervention, and I can easily imagine that Penn is in that family of thinkers. Therefor they pretend to get a 'pass' on the word corporation and usually play madlibs by replacing that word with "small business" or "community members." I'm not going to articulate why that's dumb, but it is.

[dirty_ape]

I remember years ago I asked a much more intellectual, politically minded friend of mine what libertarianism was and he just told me "they want America to be like it was in the 1800's."

I didn't really understand at the time but at this point, there is a lot I like about it. Economy stuff not so much but anything that has to do with sex, drugs, marriage I agree with. It's been proven time and time again that making things such as drugs and prostitution illegal does nothing but make it worse. Tons of countries have legal, regulated prostitution and it just makes it safer for everyone involved. I remember hearing about some country that legalized all drugs(Portugal? Spain? Can't remember) and instead focused money on addiction support and they drastically lowered the rates of drug use.

[Zyler]

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;50932649]I remember years ago I asked a much more intellectual, politically minded friend of mine what libertarianism was and he just told me "they want America to be like it was in the 1800's."

I didn't really understand at the time but at this point, there is a lot I like about it. Economy stuff not so much but anything that has to do with sex, drugs, marriage I agree with. It's been proven time and time again that making things such as drugs and prostitution illegal does nothing but make it worse. Tons of countries have legal, regulated prostitution and it just makes it safer for everyone involved. I remember hearing about some country that legalized all drugs(Portugal? Spain? Can't remember) and instead focused money on addiction support and they drastically lowered the rates of drug use.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you're a social libertarian but not an economic libertarian. I also find it's best to separate social political positions and economic political positions.

I guess the closest overall ideological movement to what you're thinking of is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism"]Social Liberalism[/URL].

[QUOTE]Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][7][8][9][10][/QUOTE]

Social Justice in this case refers to the classical definition of helping the poor and providing welfare for the sake of public good, not the bastardized version we tend to see on the internet today.

Overall, the idea of Social Liberalism is "do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anybody. but we should still help people who are poor and disadvantaged."

Libertarianism is an evolution of Classical Liberalism (which is what the American bill of rights and constitution are founded on), Social Liberalism is between Classical Liberalism and Social Democracy (and it's also the basis for the universal suffrage and civil rights movements as Civil Rights, also known as 'Negative Liberties', are a Social Liberal concept).

[Sgt. Napalm]

[QUOTE=Thlis;50932261]His financial ideas are absurd.

When the idea of tipping someone for services is a hot debate you want to have roadworks/healthcare/military/scientific funding to be dependent on the whim of the public?

Why would big companies pay for the entire country's police when they could just hire security firms for themselves for cheaper?

What leads to less corruption, universally gathered funds for government departments, or larger funds given by a smaller group of wealthy individuals?[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily think he said that he wanted infrastructure, welfare, and schooling, for example, to be private. I think he just said that the Libertarian position made these incredibly nuanced questions and conceded that government would and should probably have a hand in things like this. He uses his gun litmus to discuss how difficult these questions could be.

Should the government use a gun to build a library? Should the government use a gun to make schooling available? Etc. These are the questions that are very difficult to answer and should be thought about very carefully. He wraps up the video by saying that in reality what's best for America would be an open discussion between two very intelligent people from dramatically different positions on ideas about government control, and then letting the people decide for themselves. He also concedes that in reality going full socialist or full libertarian would be unlikely and probably unwise.

[Zyler]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50932682] He wraps up the video by saying that in reality what's best for America would be an open discussion between two very intelligent people from dramatically different positions on ideas about government control, and then letting the people decide for themselves.[/QUOTE]

So a democracy, basically? I.E. what we have now (minus the intelligent people part). I don't see public officials literally using guns to open libraries. We already have public discussions to decide this stuff in the form of public debates, lobbying and elections.

It's just that, when we have these public debates, someone has to y'know, lose. And the losing party has to do whatever was agreed upon. That's how society works.

Not everybody can get what they want every time. Not everybody can be in power at once.

We have to work together, we need to compromise. We need to cooperate in order to procure and maintain food and shelter, or we die.

[Sgt. Napalm]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50932489]Lots of words, too many to quote here[/QUOTE]

I think I see where you're coming from. You bring up some strong points. But I would like to discuss some points. I also should say upfront that I don't purport to be Libertarian or necessarily subscribe to its views, I'm just thinking about stuff.

The first point you make is the burden of poverty on our society. You mention people who are impoverished who turn to crime or people who are addicts who have clouded minds and unsound judgement. This is an important consideration. However in the video he discusses briefly the idea of the universal level of income, as purportedly suggested by Gary Johnson. Wouldn't such a system help curb such cases where impoverished people felt they had no choice? Obviously this would introduce other problems, but I don't think that position necessarily leaves such people out in the cold.

This leads into the discussion of drugs. You discuss many currently controlled substances which are proven to be incredibly damaging to the human body. You suggest that these substances could ultimately cause more harm than good to society. To which I would ask: Which would be more damaging to a society: controlled substances being made legal, creating many addicts causing many problems, or the current "war on drugs" system, which outlaws these cases and contributes to our current overflowing prison population? I can't claim to truthfully know. But from where I'm standing I'd think I'd rather have less control over these substances instead of more. I think that the danger presented by these substances being controlled is a larger danger than one presented by a supposed "free society", in which these substances are not controlled at all, especially when considering how it contributes to prison overpopulation and race issues.

The rest is an argument on a totally hands-off government. No civil protection, namely. And again, I don't necessarily think that's what Penn is arguing for, given his analogy of the gun- it would be right to use a gun to prevent harm against innocent people. And in the context of a government, I think he believes that to be true too. Though I guess that's not really true libertarianism, is it? I'm not sure. Maybe it can be very nuanced, just like with other philosophies.

I would like for you to expound on the discussion of corporations, purely for the sake of discussion.

[editline]23rd August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Zyler;50932731]So a democracy, basically? I.E. what we have now (minus the intelligent people part). I don't see public officials literally using guns to open libraries. We already have public discussions to decide this stuff in the form of public debates, lobbying and elections.

It's just that, when we have these public debates, someone has to y'know, lose. And the losing party has to do whatever was agreed upon. That's how society works.

Not everybody can get what they want every time. Not everybody can be in power at once.

We have to work together, we need to compromise. We need to cooperate in order to procure and maintain food and shelter, or we die.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think I fall left-libertarain too if you held a gun to my head and told me to say what I was.

[editline]23rd August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50932243]I also agree with his idea of a brilliant conversation would be Sanders and Johnson debating the role and size of government, though I do wonder if after 4 years of Sanders policy if Penn would still be happy since a lot of what Sanders proposes goes against basic Libertarian values. That said, I do get a feeling that he is genuine in his respect for Sanders as someone who is actually willing to talk policy about making government work for the people.[/QUOTE]

I've been a long fan of Penn for a long time now, and to me it's clear that he values sincerity and open-mindedness more than having arbitrary political, social, or religious views. He values open discourse above all, and that I respect more than any political views. I might not agree with him on everything but this is why I like him. Here's another video of his that illustrates this to me.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8[/media]

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50932759]I think I see where you're coming from. You bring up some strong points. But I would like to discuss some points. I also should say upfront that I don't purport to be Libertarian or necessarily subscribe to its views, I'm just thinking about stuff.

The first point you make is the burden of poverty on our society. You mention people who are impoverished who turn to crime or people who are addicts who have clouded minds and unsound judgement. This is an important consideration. However in the video he discusses briefly the idea of the universal level of income, as purportedly suggested by Gary Johnson. Wouldn't such a system help curb such cases where impoverished people felt they had no choice? Obviously this would introduce other problems, but I don't think that position necessarily leaves such people out in the cold.

This leads into the discussion of drugs. You discuss many currently controlled substances which are proven to be incredibly damaging to the human body. You suggest that these substances could ultimately cause more harm than good to society. To which I would ask: Which would be more damaging to a society: controlled substances being made legal, creating many addicts causing many problems, or the current "war on drugs" system, which outlaws these cases and contributes to our current overflowing prison population? I can't claim to truthfully know. But from where I'm standing I'd think I'd rather have less control over these substances instead of more. I think that the danger presented by these substances being controlled is a larger danger than one presented by a supposed "free society", in which these substances are not controlled at all, especially when considering how it contributes to prison overpopulation and race issues.

The rest is an argument on a totally hands-off government. No civil protection, namely. And again, I don't necessarily think that's what Penn is arguing for, given his analogy of the gun- it would be right to use a gun to prevent harm against innocent people. And in the context of a government, I think he believes that to be true too. Though I guess that's not really true libertarianism, is it? I'm not sure. Maybe it can be very nuanced, just like with other philosophies.

I would like for you to expound on the discussion of corporations, purely for the sake of discussion.

-[B]Snip-[/B]

[/QUOTE]

I'm going to hit three points really quickly.

The first is the point about "Universal Basic Income." I suggest you go read the story, [I]Player Piano,[/I] by Kurt Vonnegut. In it, a post-scarcity society deals with the issue of automation. That U.S. established a public works corps called, "Reclamation and Reconstruction," though it's often jokingly called the, "Reeks and Wrecks." The take away is that there will always be a 'lower class,' even in a society that purports to provide a safety net. One argument for how this would come about is that an entirely unregulated market would respond to a UBI in the same way that colleges have responded to the virtually uncapped lending that students receive, that is namely, with universal inflation.

It perhaps wouldn't happen over night, but it would happen quickly enough that you've either got to continually grow the UBI or install price controls to keep the cost of certain goods in check.

Which dove tails in to the [I]other[/I] problem with UBI, that is, where the money comes from. Libertarians [I]cannot[/I] answer that, since they simultaneously want to torch the tax system. Current nations that have UBI or equivalents [I]also[/I] have pretty high rates of taxation, and no small amount of government meddling in all sorts of economic and social affairs, which is the literal antipathy of the Libertarian ideal.

Second. "The War on Drugs." There is no reason that substances can be banned [I]without[/I] resorting to the inane war on drugs, and it's an almost embarrassing dichotomy to have to choose between wholesale legalization or a Reaganomic holy crusade.

That's all I'll say on that matter. Sorry if it feels like a disservice, but the fact of the matter is that for a very long time there wasn't a "war on drugs," but many drugs were still illegal or controlled. While Portugal has had a very nice time of whole-sale legalization, it again eskews the Libertarian ideal since the Portuguese government simultaneously poured a ton of money in to rehabilitation and support for recovering addicts. Not to mention that Portugal is also hardly "a model" for the rest of the world in terms of social conditions and economic conditions, being a relatively minor European country with a fairly small, homogeneous population.

Third and finally, you put the lie to the Libertarian ideal yourself by doing what many people who say they, "like" Libertarianism do. You almost immediately dump the core ideals of the philosophy when faced with the hard choices, and began bartering with solutions that violate the ideal. Principally, the Criminal Justice aspect.*

Tell me, how in a government that collects no tax, makes no economic regulation and fosters no social programming, is a police force supposed to be raised and used to arbitrate disputes? Where do courts and codes of law come from in this society? Who upholds and dispenses with them? If any of your answers end in "private interests," then congratulations, you've terminated the Libertarian philosophy in it's most embarrassing contradiction, Corporate Fascism. Plainly put, if money becomes the sole motivator of public action, then actions which generate the most money, regardless of their moral content, become the [I]de jure[/I] government.

*I want to add that vacating your primary goals and ideals is not "nuancing" a philosophy. It is gutting it and wearing the face.

I would write more, but there's a lot to chew here already and I have to go to work. Let me reiterate my biggest issue with the Libertarian ideal as a whole.

It lays claim to one thing, and one thing only, personal liberty. It claims it is the only ideology that rightly and justly bears the banner of that treasure. It then fails to explain or articulate, without undermining it's own principles, how it can keep the other good treasures of society as we know it while still enshrining that liberty as paramount. It is arrogant, naive, and frankly expresses a sort of chauvinism that the well-to-do middle-to-plutocratic classes insist is good for everybody when it in fact only enriches those who have capital in their court or a gun in their hand.

[Sgt. Napalm]

First I wanna ask: "You almost immediately dump the core ideals of the philosophy when faced with the hard choices, and began bartering with solutions that violate the ideal. Principally, the Criminal Justice aspect."

How can I dump the core ideals of a philosophy I never really claimed to adhere to? Except for when I said "Maybe if you put a gun to my head, I might say I was a left-libertarian but not really, but I'm still just trying to find myself." That's like complaining that a Christian isn't being kosher enough. Yeah, they're kinda Jewish but not really.

With that out of the way I think I want to address what appears to be the main friction here: Maybe Penn and, by extension Johnson aren't really Libertarian. Because they both appear to be in favor of taxation. Obviously Johnson wants to establish that UBI and obviously that would have to come through taxes. Obviously Penn is in favor of welfare, of public schooling, and infrastructure being supplied by the government and obviously that would have to come from taxes. So I'm not sure what to call that political philosophy now.

Also, re: the war on drugs I'm not sure there's really a dichotomy there because obviously at some point, if a society wants to address these problems, these substances will need to be decriminalized so that the people who do wish to receive rehab can come forth freely without fear of punishment. Then these people would need to freely be able to choose to receive that drug addiction treatment. I think this closely adheres to the spirit of "personal accountability" even if its requisite programs needed are decidedly anti-libertarian. I don't know.

I'll be sure to check out that book though, thank you for the recommendation.

(PS, I don't mean to be a pedant or demeaning here, honest, because you seem to be one of the smartest and best-articulated dudes I've seen on FP my entire time here, but I just wanted to point out that "it's" = "contraction for it is or it has", and "its" = "possessive form of it". "without undermining it is own principles", etc. Thank you for the talk, I'm enjoying this.)

[Thy Reaper]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50934884]The first is the point about "Universal Basic Income." I suggest you go read the story, [I]Player Piano,[/I] by Kurt Vonnegut. In it, a post-scarcity society deals with the issue of automation. That U.S. established a public works corps called, "Reclamation and Reconstruction," though it's often jokingly called the, "Reeks and Wrecks." The take away is that there will always be a 'lower class,' even in a society that purports to provide a safety net. One argument for how this would come about is that an entirely unregulated market would respond to a UBI in the same way that colleges have responded to the virtually uncapped lending that students receive, that is namely, with universal inflation.

It perhaps wouldn't happen over night, but it would happen quickly enough that you've either got to continually grow the UBI or install price controls to keep the cost of certain goods in check.

Which dove tails in to the [I]other[/I] problem with UBI, that is, where the money comes from. Libertarians [I]cannot[/I] answer that, since they simultaneously want to torch the tax system. Current nations that have UBI or equivalents [I]also[/I] have pretty high rates of taxation, and no small amount of government meddling in all sorts of economic and social affairs, which is the literal antipathy of the Libertarian ideal.[/QUOTE]

Strange, most of the libertarians I've had the chance to talk to vehemently oppose a UBI, precisely because of its reliance on taxation (or in the rare extreme example, printing money). I don't see how Gary Johnson is able to coherently propose anything like a UBI.

Also, if funded wholly by taxation, it's not clear that UBI would lead to sustained inflation. The sorts of goods purchased by the poorest segments of society also happen to be the sorts of goods that they can't avoid purchasing, so simple access to money shouldn't create any opportunity for inflation that doesn't already exist.

[RGamesINC]

There seems to be a lot of talking like we have to stick to only the strictest of ideals from a party. I thought we were discussing Penn Jillette's video, wherein he explains the issue with taxation that the libertarian party has and how that idea is something that should be kept in mind when discussing policies and later mentions that less government means less megacorporation exploitation of corruption within government. At no point does this derail into saying that all taxation should go up in flames or that we should shut down 99% of government systems. If you start throwing around how "the libertarian party this" or "the libertarian party that" when what you're more accurately describing is anarcho-capitalism then you've missed the point of the video on your first class flight to crazy-town.

These are some of the very pitfalls that Penn seems to be alluding to. Instead of people trading ideas, experimenting, and cooperating they're just jumping to the belief that going hardline on one political philosophy will solve all problems. But of course it's not, things are more nuanced than that. Penn may say that he wouldn't use a gun to build a library, but he doesn't say that you shouldn't and he openly admits that it's a hard question. Moreover, he [I]admits that he doesn't know better than you[/I]. This is why he's talking about what he believes and what he wants to try. None of this is about how libertarianism is going to save America, it's Penn talking about what about it he likes, what parts of it have problems, and how we can try eachothers' ideas in order to feel out these harder questions and really find out what's best for the country. Whatever comes of that, it's got to be better than these people who assume that they're right about everything and that anybody who disagrees with them is evil/sexist/hates America/is a commie/is a Nazi/idiots.

Penn is endorsing cooperation, not competition. Whether or not he's a libertarian has nothing to do with it outside of the fact that he wants to explain that everybody here is coming from a good place (other than, as he mentions, Donald Trump). If you spend all of your time trying to achieve a country that adheres only to the ideal of your one political philosophy then you are a radical fundamentalist and will likely just end up tearing the country apart.

[Daniel Smith]

I find it interesting how Penn unintentionally ended up creating the Nordic model when having the fake compromise conversation between Bernie and Gary

[Kube]

[QUOTE=Zyler;50932660]Sounds like you're a social libertarian but not an economic libertarian. I also find it's best to separate social political positions and economic political positions.

I guess the closest overall ideological movement to what you're thinking of is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism"]Social Liberalism[/URL].

Social Justice in this case refers to the classical definition of helping the poor and providing welfare for the sake of public good, not the bastardized version we tend to see on the internet today.

Overall, the idea of Social Liberalism is "do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anybody. but we should still help people who are poor and disadvantaged."

Libertarianism is an evolution of Classical Liberalism (which is what the American bill of rights and constitution are founded on), Social Liberalism is between Classical Liberalism and Social Democracy (and it's also the basis for the universal suffrage and civil rights movements as Civil Rights, also known as 'Negative Liberties', are a Social Liberal concept).[/QUOTE]

A lot of people I'd bumped heads with in SH think they know me as a Libertarian, but really you hit the nail on the head in how I'd identify my political leanings.

From my social belief being "who cares" and that fiscally I believe government can be effective in key areas(those key areas being Infrastructure, Healthcare, and Education) but that it shouldn't be the answer to all our problems and that people do have a responsibility for themselves and can't expect someone else to constantly take care of them.

Now, does that mean I'm against helping the disadvantaged or providing means to help elevate ones economic status? No, I'm all for providing those means because how I look at it you're granted financial freedom and that is when a free life truly begins.

[Flameon]

[IMG]http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Pwease+no+steppy_3bb3b1_5809131.jpg[/IMG]

The fact that other people don't know whats best for other people is precisely why a pure free-market approach ends up messing up the poor because large corporations don't know how much money the poor need.