Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

It is not every day that a news item comes up that illustrates how one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time.  At least, not so many stories that lend to a narrative that even a Leftist can understand.  The Sandra Fluke story is just such a story.

The story I have heard from my Leftist friends over the years is that it is impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Mind you, this impossibility comes mostly from those who disdain absolutes.  So it goes: "You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative because paying for the social programs is a fiscal duty of government." I never heard a QED at the end of one of these mini-seminars, so apparently it is even more 'settled science' than 'Climate Change.'

Somewhere in the last few decades this perception that to be socially liberal means to be the happy giver of the wealth of others has grown to the point that today a law school student, attending a prestigious private Catholic school, can go before Congress and demand legislation for her choice in birth control to be included in her student healthcare plan.

This nonsense is on the order of me going to the legislature during my college days and demanding a daily supply of condoms, just in case I got lucky.  No, that is too mild.  It is more like a demand for lobster and caviar on the meal plan.

Mind you, nobody is trying to prevent Sandra Fluke from obtaining the birth control of her choice.  She is in Washington, DC with all of the resources of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations at her disposal.  No, she wants to fulfill her fetish of having the government to force an organization to do something that they don't want to do.  It is the perfect story to illustrate the tenant of libertarianism, that you should be free to do with your body what you will and the rest of us are free to abstain from participation.

As you may know, there is no end to this. If this demand is met, a new list of demands will be presented, and on and on.  If I take my Leftie friends at their word, a dicey proposition at best, then literally any proclivity, fetish, want or desire should be lumped into "social good."  Of course, under Communism this works out just fine, right?  Well, unless you are a homosexual in China who ends up in electroshock "therapy" or a woman who wants more than one baby.

Courtesy of Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress

The fact is, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Milton Friedman advocated the legalization of heroine (as do I) but he never advocated it be dispensed from a free clinic.  Folks, socially liberal means we don't care and are not going to stop you from doing whatever you want to yourself, and/or consenting participants.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR YOUR PARTY!