[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by dda

People who are against abortion, against gay marriage, etc. are considered "social conservatives." The converse defines "social liberals" though I have never heard that term articulated. I am not sure what a centerist position would be on such issues.

A centrist, which i think i am probably (reasonably social liberal, quite economically conservative given my field, generally indifferent to the power and scope of government provided it doesnt clash with the above), would approach these issues with some even-handedness. For example, a "social conservative" would never advocate abortion, and critique a social liberal for defying/denying the rights of the unborn child. A centrist would suggest that unnecessary abortion should be (at best*) advocated against or (at worst) forbidden, with a definition of "necessary" including the health of the mother (if it endangers the mother, abortion is an option), whether the child is a spawn of rape (the denial of the female's basic human right to chose with whom to reproduce), and the prohibition on late term abortion (eg, the third trimester, by which point either of the above should have become apparent) or something along those lines. Thus, a centrist would, in most instances, be against abortion - particularly if it will soon be summer and that being pregnant doesnt do well for a figure in a bikini on Bondi or some other "useless" reason - however, is not completely against the notion of killing an unborn child. Similarly, no Centrist would have any objection to the use of any contraceptives.

Centrist views on marriage would probably focus on the legal status that such a union provides to people in today's society, rather than focusing on "morality" with the presumption that marriage exists only to procreate within a stable household with the idea that stability leads to superior results for the child, maximising their success in later life (which it, apparently, does - whether that is due to biological, psychological, social and/or economic issues i dont recall/unsure about). A social conservative would see that children is the ultimate purpose of marriage, and believe that children born of marriage do better, thus see marriage as necessity for having children. A liberal would be more concerned about the state of such a marriage - if it had already "broken down", then its not too hard to imagine that any psychological/social/economic etc benefits that could be expected of marriage may not exist anyway, and indeed provide a negative atmosphere for the child thus being detrimental. A social liberal might see the right of parents to persue what they know best for their children, based on physiological instincts of those children to want the best for their children. As such, parents should have all the power over whom they choose to help raise their child, and see marriage as a pledge of commitment that may not necessarily be beneficial or warranted. A centrist would note that both sides have merit, but irrespective of this, marriage as a legal entity wrt property rights should one or both die, the legal "legitimacy"** of a child is important for the Estate of the parents to go to supporting the child/ren. Further, more mundane things such as access to banking and other financial details, civil documents like birth certificates, drivers licenses, health and other insurance forms/documents, all the way through to registered post - all of these institutions of society and economy are predisposed to assuming either a single adult, or a married couple, with access restricted to those groups. Thus, if you are not married, it is far/more difficult to gain access to "critical" documents that both of you share. Irrespective of whether a couple is gay or straight, that single presumption necessitates that in order to become a legally effective unit within society, marriage should be for all. Besides, why cant two fathers/mothers be any more or less effective, efficient, compassionate or proud of any children that they bring up? There are plenty of failed male/female relationships out there - why not let gays fail too?



*depending on scope of centralism, i suppose.
**when the hell is a child who is born not legitimate, insofar as they are a living breathing individual with dreams, aspirations and ability? This social construct i rail against, as it seems to serve no beneficial purpose - merely used as a tool to stigmatise the unfortunate (who, after all, had no say in the matter originally).

Originally Posted by dda

People who believe that the government needs additional funds in order to expand various programs are "fiscal liberals" while those who wish to limit the money given to government are considered "fiscal conservatives."

I'm not quite sure about that. I think liberalism in the terms of government power and influence is more about the limitiation of government control on the individual so that they are free to persue their own desires (ie, liberalism). Whilst its true, leftist tendencies support big government, that is a different thing to liberalism. I think the Whig party in Britain before the American Revolution espoused the principles of liberalism wrt government, ideas which i think Furball expressed above.

Originally Posted by dda

On fiscal matters, I tend to be more conservative. I think that the more money we give to government, the larger and more intrusive government gets, to me a bad thing.

I personally dont have much concern about the government having my personal information or other forms of privacy. I still believe that compared to banks and/or insurance companies, the government are still amateurs. Nevertheless, due to my strong economic conservatism, i still see that the role of governments to be simplified to correcting market failures (including provisions for public goods like defence), as well as providing basic services for a fee. The fee doesnt have to be large, but it is necessary to prevent complete free riding. Overarching all government activities, however, should be the concept of "common sense" - if it makes sense for a government agency to do xyz rather than privately, then do so; to avoid unnecessarily sticking to some ideological dogma (of small government), governments should not be afraid to act to a perceived injustice or inequity that is not reflective of the society that makes it up. If children are dying, then act.

I think i differ to most americans (and europeans) insofar as dont have any problem at all with government compulsion - insofar as i think its fine and a good thing for compulsory voting, compulsory (basic, ie up to Senior school) education, emergency health care, compulsory inoculation of common communicable diseases, and similar things. I dont care whether some government pe0n is searching through my emails, looking at my forum posts and so on - mainly because i know they'd be bored absolutely stiff from the shit that drivels out of my mouth. And on that note, i'll finish.