Democrats, what is more important?

[Richard]

As someone who does not believe government control of economy or lives, I do consider economic issues to be more important than social issues.  Without an economy people will be starving and then the right to smoke weed will be very pointless.  A completely free market is vital.  A free society is a bonus.

What do you consider more important?  Social values, or economic ones?  If given the choice, would you rather have the United States move towards:

- a much free-er society, with drugs decriminalized, the government getting out of the marriage business, no bedroom laws, no gun laws,  and so forth, BUT, with a free, capitalistic economy with virtually no taxes, very little regulations, no social security, no welfare, no healthcare, and so forth

OR

- a Religious Right controlled society with bedroom laws, marriage laws, drug laws, and in general a controlled society, BUT, with a more planned controlled economy with reasonable welfare, reasonable healthcare (say for those below the poverty line and senior citizens), closed shop unions, social security, a heavy progressive income tax system, and the works?


What is more important to you?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I overall am more concerned with economic issues, but given those two choices, I'd take the first.

[Democratic Hawk]

Tough choice - but I'd reluctantly opt for the second

Dave

[Richard]

See, libertarians *usually* takes the economic road over the social road, which is why they would then vote Republican.  I'm just curious what Democrats think.

[JohnFKennedy]

First.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'd choose the second, because with economic fairness, we'd be able to buy our way out of the Religious Right mess.

[opebo]

The first choice would be ideal. 

Economic issues would be important if there were actually a left-wing party likely to gain control in the US.  In fact the Democrats are a moderately right-wing party on economic issues, and besides, they are unlikely to gain full control of the government even in a best case scenario. 

To me under these circumstances social issues are far and away the most important - Vote Democrat and defeat the Theocrats!

[phk]

Social Liberalism

[Lunar]

The first one is almost my ideal (centrist economically so I'm a bit left of it).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First

[Blerpiez]

I care more about economic issues, but I would choose the first scenario over the second

[Cashcow]

I'm somewhere between the libertarians and the Democrats... picking between those is like choosing between heaven and hell. Option 1.

[BobOMac2k2]

The first one... Dont want crazy christians telling me how to live.

[David S]

Too bad this is Dems only. Option 1 looks like the Libertarian platform.

[Richard]

Too bad this is Dems only. Option 1 looks like the Libertarian platform.

It is, but would you rather vote for Kerry or Bush?

[nclib]

Option 2 is more ideologically repulsive, but Option 1 may have a bigger personal impact on anyone who happens to become unemployed.

[Gabu]

Well, I usually dislike answering questions about which extreme I favor (it's nearly always neither), and this is no different, but option 1 is certainly better.

[Silent Hunter]

I very reluctantly go for the second.

[opebo]

Option 2 is more ideologically repulsive, but Option 1 may have a bigger personal impact on anyone who happens to become unemployed.

Ah, come on, there's virtually no social safety net now - option 1 wouldn't be that different from the status quo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However bigoted Option 2 is, after reading this carefully it's a lot better than Option 1:

In Option 1 there is nothing to stop the KKK/Neo Nazis/Etc going round killing blacks/jews/catholics/gays/people with every so slightly different hair colour etc.

It's a false choice.

[Democratic Hawk]

Would it be fair to comment than those who are more individually orientated prefer option 1 and those who are more socially orientated prefer option 2?

Dave

[skybridge]

However bigoted Option 2 is, after reading this carefully it's a lot better than Option 1:

In Option 1 there is nothing to stop the KKK/Neo Nazis/Etc going round killing blacks/jews/catholics/gays/people with every so slightly different hair colour etc.

It's a false choice.

What's there to stop them in option 2 when they're in power?

[Richard]

However bigoted Option 2 is, after reading this carefully it's a lot better than Option 1:

In Option 1 there is nothing to stop the KKK/Neo Nazis/Etc going round killing blacks/jews/catholics/gays/people with every so slightly different hair colour etc.

It's a false choice.

Don't be silly.  Murder would be illegal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However bigoted Option 2 is, after reading this carefully it's a lot better than Option 1:

In Option 1 there is nothing to stop the KKK/Neo Nazis/Etc going round killing blacks/jews/catholics/gays/people with every so slightly different hair colour etc.

It's a false choice.

Don't be silly.  Murder would be illegal.

Your intial post indicates that the Government has no power. So murder being illegal would be about as useful as a chocolate kettle.
Don't move the goalposts please.

[Inverted Things]

Put me down for whichever is better for the environment. Actually, neither really are. Unregulated markets show, time and again, that they harm the environment. On the other hand, putting the religious in charge of things won't help. Virtually all religions say some variant of 'The world was made for man, and man was meant to conquer and rule it,' which rules out environmentalism under a religious government.

P.S. I'm actually a Green, not a democrat.