Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This makes little sense to me for numerous reasons.
For explanation purposes, look at the issues of marijuana and gay marriage.
If you're a have, why do you care whether gay people marry? Why do you care if weed is legal? Neither harms you economically. To the contrary, both of these things could only benefit you, and probably will do so. Gay marriage and legal pot can only increase economic activity. If you're among the overwhelming majority of haves whose livelihoods are not challenged directly by these social changes (you aren't invested in the private prison industry, or alcohol [to the extent pot consumption may decrease drinking among the population], or sell "gay conversion" therapies), social acceptance of these things can only help your bottom line.
Almost every expansion of tolerance brings with it an improvement in GDP. The more things we let people do, the more economic activity we enjoy.
Conservatives who claim that growth is the solution to every ill and then align with social scolds who seek to preclude expansion of new industries are shooting themselves in the foot. (It's sort of like "conservatives" who desire to pillage, rather than conserve, the environment, but that's another discussion.)
Liberals have a similar form of cognitive dissonance at work. You can't claim to desire freedom and tolerance on one hand, yet desire greater govt oversight and interference in activities, on the other. Sure, wanting freedom for all sometimes requires the govt to get involved (civil rights, suffrage, etc.). But those are limited instances. Desiring a generally more robust and interfering govt, which many liberals and progressive want, inhibits freedom.
A more rationally constructed two party system would have the forces in favor of social tolerance and economic growth aligned, and the forces in favor of intolerance and govt control aligned.
|
Ty will respond Wednesday with 1500 words, but let me try and explain where i think you guys are diverging.
A reality factor in voting is that it is not a multiple choice order. You have two candidates each having positions on a number of issues. As a voter you have to distill those positions down to a choice. And no one candidate will hit on 100% for you, at least if you are a thinking person- so you have weigh pros and cons.
You use the word "tolerate," which actually makes Ty's point- your economically driven voter will tolerate a pro gay marriage candidate, got it, but "tolerate" means that voter can also live with an anti marriage candidate- it is a secondary issue.
My wife's cousin finally married her long time partner once NJ changed- they had been in a civil union for a decade. Every April she would post on her Facebook about how much more she paid in Fed taxes because she could not marry. She was a have-not in Ty's little scenario. A candidate's position on gay marriage was not secondary or something she would "tolerate," it was primary. hell, it was economic.
