I still don't understand what you mean by "legalize things". What things are you referring to example wise?
Well, there's the big ones like drugs and abortion; lowering punishments for crimes is also part of it (death penalty is un-libertarian in America), but also allowing women to fight in combat roles (come on, this shouldn't even be a debate today - of course they should), regulating carbon outputs (un-libertarian, too, but I support this), requiring businesses to label GMOs (un-libertarian, but I support this), national parks (un-libertarian), and more, but I think you get the gist.
Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.
This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.
From what it sounds like, sounds good, and it does sound like the right. It doesn't sound particularly like conserves nor libertarians, but just to the right, of which deregulation is a big part of. Libertarianism wants less other kinds of government spending, too. And Republican candidates just don't really want to do that. Trump is the only one who wants to cut space travel spending, but he wants to build some expensive wall and spend loads continually on border security, which is worse; Cruz and Rubio want to grow military spending and the death penalty, and Kasich wants longer prison sentences and death penalty (which in America, costs even more than imprisonment); and these are just some of these policies.
I agree that governments should have reserves, and not just mass debt that can't be paid in 100 years. Even though I'm a liberal (nothing to do with economics btw), and pro-social state intervention in many areas
How can you be liberal (which has a great deal to do with economy) and not support spending money you don't have? Public spending is spending money you don't have if you're over 100% debt.
Edited 3/14/2016 23:54:17
