Fiscal Conservatism v. Social Conservatism

[August1991]

I recently read the following message:

Government is far too powerful as a social institution and that is why it needs to be held in check. When it ventures beyond its legitimate role in society - to establish and enforce civil justice (as opposed to social justice) - it in fact becomes a social pariah, a monster. And that's where tax cuts and spending limits come in; they are the best way to starve the beast.

And that's why I want to clear the air: because when "Fiscals" deride Socons - conservatives - with the false accusation that we're simply imposing morality on others and we want to use the government to do the imposing, they've got it all wrong.

Conservatives are simply saying "civil government simply has no jurisdiction", it has no right, either to change the nature of marriage, or to fund abortions, or to create "universal day-care". It simply has no business and that's why tax cuts and spending limits are fundamental to conservatism. Because when you cut off the civil government's food supply - tax dollars - it simply has less money to get involved in social projects it simply has no business being in.

When people say to me, "Times are changing, Tristan. People no longer hold to 'traditional values'," I say, "That may be the case, but the agent to bring about these so-called changes should not be the civil government."

If the culture is going to change it should happen naturally, and from the bottom up, through the free market, the family and other social institutions. And not by government manipulation or the social engineering that is happening because public money is given to particular special interest groups; that is a monstrous distortion of civil government's power and purpose.

ECP Centre

I had never heard of the "ECP Centre" before.

I'm intrigued by the argument above that conservatism simply means smaller government. I'll pick specifically the notion that government should not fund abortion.

In theory, I see no obvious reason that it should. Our current state health insurance scheme does not cover many types of cosmetic surgery. It generally does not cover drug costs except for special groups. Why not exclude abortion too? Private insurance schemes typically list excluded coverage.

But is this really the issue? Or is this idea really a red herring?

IMV, the genuine issue is whether abortion is a criminal offence or not. In simple terms, is abortion murder? A social liberal would say that it's not whereas a social conservative would say that it is. Yet both might agree that government spends too much money and hence describe themselves as fiscal conservatives.

The article linked above is interesting and worth a read.

[Remiel]

I think that article really is a red herring. For all it goes on about how government should not be a tool for social change, it fails to address the fact that the government also enforces the social status quo. I think that the author would be singing a different tune if there were really a free market society.

As I said, Conservatism is a philosophy about life, and culture, and the very important balance of power between social institutions like the family, the church and the state.

A government free of societal concerns and a conservative government as he describes it are mutually exclusive ideas.

However, I do not really believe that such a thing as a government that deals in civility only can truly exist. Looking for a line between civil and social government is like standing at the edge of the ocean during a tidal shift and asking, " Where does the water begin, and the sand end? " .

[gc1765]

Conservatives are simply saying "civil government simply has no jurisdiction", it has no right, either to change the nature of marriage, or to fund abortions, or to create "universal day-care". It simply has no business and that's why tax cuts and spending limits are fundamental to conservatism. Because when you cut off the civil government's food supply - tax dollars - it simply has less money to get involved in social projects it simply has no business being in.

As someone who is somewhat fiscally conservative, but socially very liberal, I disagree that social conservatives are simply fiscal conservatives or small government conservatives.

For the example of abortions, I don't think that the government should be paying for them (or any non-essential medical treatment), but I believe strongly that women should have the right to an abortion if they pay for it. The problem with certain social conservatives is that they do not stop at not wanting to pay for abortions, they want to forbid abortions altogether. That to me is the greatest example of "big" government.

Take another example, the legalization of marijuana. Certain social conservatives want to make it illegal. As a fiscal conservative/social liberal, I say legalize marijuana and have the government sell it like they do with alcohol, which would make a profit and save money on law enforcement. Two birds with one stone.

As for marriage, I'd like to see the government out of the marriage business altogether. Of course, most social conservatives wouldn't go for this (they'd probably say how it was a threat to marriage or something). The government could have a civil union or "marriage" that is equal for everyone. Then let the church/religious institutions decide who they want to marry. By forbidding SSM altogether, the government is telling the religious institutions who they can and can't marry. Again, big government.

[BubberMiley]

In simple terms, is abortion murder? A social liberal would say that it's not whereas a social conservative would say that it is.

Not necessarily. I think there's no question it is the deliberate murder of a fetus. But because that fetus lives in someone else's body, that person has the right to remove it. Because not providing the service results in back-alley abortions, the healthcare system has a responsibility to provide the service for the good of overall public health.

So, yes, it's probably wrong and definitely murder, but individual autonomy and public health trumps everything.

[geoffrey]

Not necessarily. I think there's no question it is the deliberate murder of a fetus. But because that fetus lives in someone else's body, that person has the right to remove it. Because not providing the service results in back-alley abortions, the healthcare system has a responsibility to provide the service for the good of overall public health.

So, yes, it's probably wrong and definitely murder, but individual autonomy and public health trumps everything.

Surpisingly I somewhat agree with you, but I think I use better logic.

The harm of banning abortions far outweighs the harm of having them legal. Essientially, troubled women are going to have abortions regardless of their legality, and pushing it underground just ends up with more people hurt/killed. Individual autonomy is not limitless, we do have to draw lines when it infringes upon others' rights, which it does in abortion.

That said, I still think having an abortion is a highly immoral act, possibly not an inch shorter than murder, and I'd never encourage such behavoir.

I think a woman's right to her body is a poor argument by the way, a siemese twin should surely have no right to terminate it's other half at whim... you'll find more strength in the social costs and impacts in abortion-illegal countries.

[gc1765]

Individual autonomy is not limitless, we do have to draw lines when it infringes upon others' rights, which it does in abortion.

But the "other" in this case wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the person considering an abortion. And there's no reason to belive that the fetus is conscious (do you remember being a fetus?), so an abortion is only doing harm in the sense that it prevents the formation of a human being.

That being said, if you burn down someone else's house, that is wrong. If you burn down a house which you built with your own hands, I have no problem with that. Of course, I would never burn down my own house, nor would I ever want my wife to have an abortion, but if someone else wants to burn down their own house or have an abortion, it's none of my business.

[Figleaf]

Of course the government should pay for abortions! Good grief ... anyone who can't afford an abortion certainly can't afford to raise a child.

Abortions should be promoted. Cripes, you should have to post a bond to be allowed to bear one of the little buggers.

[geoffrey]

But the "other" in this case wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the person considering an abortion. And there's no reason to belive that the fetus is conscious (do you remember being a fetus?), so an abortion is only doing harm in the sense that it prevents the formation of a human being.

That being said, if you burn down someone else's house, that is wrong. If you burn down a house which you built with your own hands, I have no problem with that. Of course, I would never burn down my own house, nor would I ever want my wife to have an abortion, but if someone else wants to burn down their own house or have an abortion, it's none of my business.

You can't possibly win the abortion argument on the fetus being conscious side of things. That just opens up a huge can of worms and a list of examples that would take you a lifetime to justify. It's actually quite a mess to look at things that way. Like I said, I think the most rationally argument for abortion is that people will do it anyways, so we might as well limit the damage.

The first aspect of your above argument is that the 'other' wouldn't exist without the person considering the abortion, would you extend that to children too? They wouldn't exist without parents, they have no consious reality until about age 2. Essientially, your argument (I'm sure your thoughts on it go further than what you've written above) as I see it would allow me to kill my child up until about age 2.

I can't rationalise that. It's the ultimate infringement upon liberty to take a life... what gives the 1 year old a right that the 7 month gestated fetus doesn't get.

[gc1765]

The first aspect of your above argument is that the 'other' wouldn't exist without the person considering the abortion, would you extend that to children too? They wouldn't exist without parents, they have no consious reality until about age 2. Essientially, your argument (I'm sure your thoughts on it go further than what you've written above) as I see it would allow me to kill my child up until about age 2.

I sort of anticipated that question...To be honest, I'm not certain myself how to rectify such an argument. The only argument I can think of is the one that I heard from Riverwind, that once a baby is born it is easy to transfer the baby to adopted parents without any harm to the mother. I'm not sure if that's a good argument or not, but it's the best I've heard. I have a philosophical question though, for anyone, why is it wrong to kill something (ie a baby) that is not conscious (assuming of course that a one year old is not conscious)?

Anyways, the whole abortion argument is all about where to draw the line, unless of course you believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is always wrong, or you believe it's ok to kill your children at any point in their life. Most people would fall somewhere inbetween those two. Your post brings up a good question though...as far as I understand (and I'm not sure I'm correct on this) it's legal to have an abortion right up until the baby is born. Is there much of a difference between an eight month old and a two year old? If so, what is the main difference?

[gc1765]

Incidentally, I will put forth that there are two or three arguments (that I can think of) against abortion (or murder).

One is that it takes away the potential for life (or life, in the case of murder). Using this argument, I would say it's wrong for someone to kill someone else's fetus, as it takes away a potential life (even if that fetus is not conscious). But killing your own fetus would not be wrong because that potential for life wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Secondly is that it does harm to the person. Although, it seems to me harm could only be done if the person is conscious, in order to experience the harm. Then again, once they are dead they are no longer conscious, so is it still "harm"? (IOW, if you're dead, why would you care that you're dead?)

Finally, I suppose you could say that killing someone does harm to others. In reference to the second point, if harm can not be done to someone who is dead, it could still be "harmful" to friends and family of that person.

Any other arguments as to why it's wrong?

Whew, that's too much philosophy for me in one night...time to get some sleep

[Renegade]

I'll pick specifically the notion that government should not fund abortion.

In theory, I see no obvious reason that it should. Our current state health insurance scheme does not cover many types of cosmetic surgery. It generally does not cover drug costs except for special groups. Why not exclude abortion too? Private insurance schemes typically list excluded coverage.

Many fiscal conservatives (myself included) support the funding for abortion. The reason why is that it is the lesser of two fiscal evils. The public funding cost of an abortion is less than the public funding cost of supporting an unwanted child. Fiscal conservatives are not given the choice of not supporting the unwanted child. If there was no additional cost implication of supporting an unwanted child, my guess is that fiscal consevatives would not support funding for abortions either.

The article linked above is interesting and worth a read.

IMV, the article makes a number of incorrect assumptions and logical inconsistancies.

The article says that government's authortity shoudl not extend to changing the definition of marriage. Doesn't the logically extention of that mean, that government authority should not extend to even defining marriage to begin with? If people or churches are free to define marriages for themselves, I suspect that would be a position Tristan Emmanuel would find uncomfortable.

The article assumes that fiscal conservatives would not support "free market" healthcare. This is not true. It further implies that fiscal conservatives ideology includes "leftwing sympathies for social programs that cost lots of money". This is simply false.

[Renegade]

Cripes, you should have to post a bond to be allowed to bear one of the little buggers.

Well, thats one thing you and I agree on.

[Remiel]

Why is it exactly that there is no furor over whether it is murder to turn off the life support of a legally brain-dead patient?

If you think of the mother as organic life support, then why would it be any different to turn off the life support for a fetus that has less brain activity than the legally brain-dead patient?

Why the selectivity?

[Renegade]

Why is it exactly that there is no furor over whether it is murder to turn off the life support of a legally brain-dead patient?

If you think of the mother as organic life support, then why would it be any different to turn off the life support for a fetus that has less brain activity than the legally brain-dead patient?

Why the selectivity?

Sometimes there is furor. If a person showed no brain activity (ie were brain-dead) but you knew there was a posibility that they could recover after 6-months and show normal activity, would you still be as quick to turn off life support.

[scribblet]

There was a furor, at least over Terri ( remember that one in the U.S.) the parents had Terry Randall advocating for them in the news and other anti abortionists. I didn't though, see any fuss very recently over the plug being pulled on the teenager who was injured after a game here. No vigils with candles over pulling the plug on him.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I'm pro choice with limits on late term. I must say that my thoughts about late term has been lowered as I get older. I used to consider late term the last three months, now I consider it to be after 4 months. I have no problem with public funding for abortions, but maybe with limits on that too e.g. the public will pay for the first one only.

Harper knows what the abortion issue would do to the country, he's smart not allowing discussion, or his cabinet to the rallies. harper has never been comfortable with the socialist cons. label, and has always been a policy wonk, some think he has libertarian leanings and has said he does not believe in imposing his values on others.

Having said this, the groups who are rabidly anti abortion will never give it up, no matter what legislation might be passed or upheld, they will always fight it, and that includes Liberals, they have them too. That I suppose is what a democracy is all about, we are all entitled to our views and a voice, we all want to be heard.

[Slavik44]

The first aspect of your above argument is that the 'other' wouldn't exist without the person considering the abortion, would you extend that to children too? They wouldn't exist without parents, they have no consious reality until about age 2. Essientially, your argument (I'm sure your thoughts on it go further than what you've written above) as I see it would allow me to kill my child up until about age 2.

I think there is another angle we need to look at. You may have a valid point when discussing late term abortions...However, most Right to life organizations go so far past that point, folllowing a line of thought that is charachterized by the "moment of conception" view. I do believe their is a substantive difference between a zygote and a fetus let alone a 2 year old child. A pre-mature baby...born a month or two early has the ability to survive and develop outside the womb (usually)...this cannot be said of a zygote...

I want to quickly focus on this for a second...I think you have to understand that alot of anti-abortion groups promote the idea of "the moment of conception" which I believe to be flawed. You may have a point when discussing late term abortions (as that is only matter of 2 months or so)...but I think an arguement can be made that there is a real substantive difference between a zygote and an almost fully developed fetus....an almost fully developed fetus may be able to live and develop in the outside world. While a newborn baby could be seen as a dependant, I would not extend the same kind of dependance to a new born baby as I would to a couple cells in a uterus. But, that is often what "right to lifers" push on us. And I believe it is problematic on a number of levels.