Progressives: The Anti-Liberals

[PLC1]

As I said:



Think about it this way... No matter what the social agenda they are pushing, both parties need ever growing government power to accomplish their agenda. Whichever party is out of power knows that they will eventually retake control and that's when they begin salivating over the newly found ability to force their social agenda on the American public. In response to whatever social agenda was enacted, the other party takes control, expands government power, and the battle of retribution continues with the same result: Both centralize power in Washington but neither reduces the power of Washington.

Its a game of one-upsmanship where both sides are trying to slide the balance of power from the people to Washington, the social issues are just distracting us from the bigger picture. Many, nearly all, of the social issues people get worked up about would not even be an issue if government didn't have so much power over our lives to begin with.

No matter which party is in control the result is the same; Government keeps winning, Liberty keeps losing.

Unfortunately, you hit the nail right on the head.

As I've said many times, neither party is the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility any more, if they ever were.

It's high time for a third party, either that or a revolution of the people.

How about a peaceful revolt: If enough people agree to vote out the incumbents, could we make a real change?

 

[GenSeneca]

Are there any "Progressives" who call themselves "Liberal"? I'd gladly challenge you on that assertion.

Equally, if there are any Non-Progressives who refer to "Progressives" as "Liberals", I'll be glad to set you straight.

Additionally, if there are any who think the Republican party should "moderate" itself (become more progressive) and adopt Democrat policy positions... I'd like to hear how that will do anything to stop or reverse our nations march to 100% government control.

Government is a necessary evil... Progressives (on both sides) have embraced that evil and seek to grow it to unsustainable, unimaginable, unnecessary levels.

 

[samsara15]

We have always had 100% government control, except for a brief period of freedom duing the time of the Warren Court. We can't have that going on around here, said the Conservatives, and put an end to that brief burst of freedom after a few years.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have always had 100% government control, except for a brief period of freedom duing the time of the Warren Court.

Thats absurd on every level.. its also contradictory to just about every other statement you've made concerning capitalism and the need for ever greater regulations.

The Warren Court? While that court did enforce and protect the rights of individuals on the one hand, it also greatly expanded judicial and executive powers on the other.... The power of government can only grow when the power held by the people is taken. So the Warrend court strengthened governments ability to both take, and protect, our liberty.

Problem is, people like you don't respect individual rights, you only respect "group" rights or "collective" rights and thus, the protection is not extended to individuals equally, but only to those specific groups that, whoever is in power, deems worthy of protection.

 

[Andy]

We have always had 100% government control, except for a brief period of freedom duing the time of the Warren Court. We can't have that going on around here, said the Conservatives, and put an end to that brief burst of freedom after a few years.

You really are located on a moonbase. So in your world, a brief moment when the court handed down dictate after dictate of more and more government control over the states, is actually a moment of freedom?

You sound like the TVs in the book "1984". Less is more, work is freedom, we've increased your chocolate rations to 17 grams from 20.

 

[PLC1]

Are there any "Progressives" who call themselves "Liberal"? I'd gladly challenge you on that assertion.

Equally, if there are any Non-Progressives who refer to "Progressives" as "Liberals", I'll be glad to set you straight.

Additionally, if there are any who think the Republican party should "moderate" itself (become more progressive) and adopt Democrat policy positions... I'd like to hear how that will do anything to stop or reverse our nations march to 100% government control.

Government is a necessary evil... Progressives (on both sides) have embraced that evil and seek to grow it to unsustainable, unimaginable, unnecessary levels.

Here is what we need to understand about political terms:

Liberal and Progressive are simply euphemisms for big government statists.

There are two parties, one of which claims to be conservative, while embracing authoritarianism and statism, while the other admits to being statist, claims to be pro liberty, while being authoritarian.

The bottom line is that we have a choice between one major party that is statist and authoritarian, and the other, which is also statist and authoritarian.

 

[GenSeneca]

Here is what we need to understand about political terms:

I respectfully disagree.

The problem is the misapplication of terminology. Words have meaning, when people stop calling an apple and apple and refer to all apples as oranges, over time the words apple and orange lose their meaning.

Liberalism is an ideology, John Locke is credited as being the father of Liberalism and there is a proud history of Liberalism in this country. The Progressives have no clue who John Locke was, they call themselves liberals but don't actually adhere to the precepts of liberalism (they're actually abusive and nasty towards those who espouse such ideas) and worst of all, those in opposition to the Progressives continue to refer to them as Liberals and more generically Democrats (probably out of ignorance). This is also bad because it ignores the Progressive Republicans, the so called "Moderates" who are big government cheerleaders.

Read up on John Locke, he was a major influence on several of the founders and framers, particularly in the crafting of our Declaration of Indepenence. When you read his works, you will notice that it bears no resemblence to what the Progressives of yesterday, or today, advocate or implement as policy. Today we have a great deal of friction between the parties over social policy, Locke was a believer in social contracts between individuals and abhored the concept of a statist society that crafted social policy then used the power of the state to force society to live by governments social dictates.

Progressives also have a specific ideology (one that's counter to Liberalism), the father of American progressivism (and Pragmatism) was William James (but progressives don't know who the hell he is either) and the Progressives also have a long political history in America... Most notably being Prohibition (18th amendment, later repealed by the 21st) and the "Progressive" income tax.

Look at the early 1900's, aside from the bill of rights, there was no other time in our history that we added so many amendments to the constitution in so little time and our country just happened to be entirely run by Progressives. Some of the most egregious violations of the constitution took place during that period and because they were permanent and difficult to reverse, few of those violations were corrected, and so Americans just accept them as part of life today.

So I disagree that Liberalism and Conservatism are both statist ideologies, they are both anti-statist. The problem is the misapplication of the terms. We use those terms generically to describe Progressives on both sides (both Progressing toward absolute statism), and in doing so, we malign the ideologies of Liberalism and Conservatism.

Liberals need to stop letting Progressives call themselves Liberals and recognize that allowing them to do so is a slight on Liberalism. Conservatives need to stop letting Progressive Republicans call themselves Conservatives as its a slight on Conservatism. Both Liberals and Conservatives need to refer to Progressive Democrats and Republicans as simply Progressives. Of course, if the Progressives were actually proud of their ideology, (which runs counter to both Liberalism and Conservatism), if they could be honest with the public rather than having to fool a majority some of the time, then we wouldn't have this problem.... But they have to pretend they are something they are not, they have to be dishonest in who they are and what they believe in order to get power.

 

[PLC1]

I respectfully disagree.

The problem is the misapplication of terminology. Words have meaning, when people stop calling an apple and apple and refer to all apples as oranges, over time the words apple and orange lose their meaning.

Liberalism is an ideology, John Locke is credited as being the father of Liberalism and there is a proud history of Liberalism in this country. The Progressives have no clue who John Locke was, they call themselves liberals but don't actually adhere to the precepts of liberalism (they're actually abusive and nasty towards those who espouse such ideas) and worst of all, those in opposition to the Progressives continue to refer to them as Liberals and more generically Democrats (probably out of ignorance). This is also bad because it ignores the Progressive Republicans, the so called "Moderates" who are big government cheerleaders.

Read up on John Locke, he was a major influence on several of the founders and framers, particularly in the crafting of our Declaration of Indepenence. When you read his works, you will notice that it bears no resemblence to what the Progressives of yesterday, or today, advocate or implement as policy. Today we have a great deal of friction between the parties over social policy, Locke was a believer in social contracts between individuals and abhored the concept of a statist society that crafted social policy then used the power of the state to force society to live by governments social dictates.

Progressives also have a specific ideology (one that's counter to Liberalism), the father of American progressivism (and Pragmatism) was William James (but progressives don't know who the hell he is either) and the Progressives also have a long political history in America... Most notably being Prohibition (18th amendment, later repealed by the 21st) and the "Progressive" income tax.

Look at the early 1900's, aside from the bill of rights, there was no other time in our history that we added so many amendments to the constitution in so little time and our country just happened to be entirely run by Progressives. Some of the most egregious violations of the constitution took place during that period and because they were permanent and difficult to reverse, few of those violations were corrected, and so Americans just accept them as part of life today.

So I disagree that Liberalism and Conservatism are both statist ideologies, they are both anti-statist. The problem is the misapplication of the terms. We use those terms generically to describe Progressives on both sides (both Progressing toward absolute statism), and in doing so, we malign the ideologies of Liberalism and Conservatism.

Liberals need to stop letting Progressives call themselves Liberals and recognize that allowing them to do so is a slight on Liberalism. Conservatives need to stop letting Progressive Republicans call themselves Conservatives as its a slight on Conservatism. Both Liberals and Conservatives need to refer to Progressive Democrats and Republicans as simply Progressives. Of course, if the Progressives were actually proud of their ideology, (which runs counter to both Liberalism and Conservatism), if they could be honest with the public rather than having to fool a majority some of the time, then we wouldn't have this problem.... But they have to pretend they are something they are not, they have to be dishonest in who they are and what they believe in order to get power.

Yes, all of that is well and good. The problem with all of these terms is that they are being misused, just as you describe. When words are misused, the meaning becomes subjective and tends to depend on the user.

Liberalism, as you define it, and conservatism, that is to say, real conservatism as opposed to that espoused by the Republicans of today, are anti statist in nature. I'll agree with you there.

Since both the Democrats (called liberals) and the Republicans (called conservatives) are statists, then they must not really be what the true meaning of those terms imply, correct?

Now, we tend to like to throw around a new word: socialism. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production. The term "socialism" is being increasingly used to mean statism.

And, further, the term "statist" has different meanings to different people.

It does get confusing, doesn't it?

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, we tend to like to throw around a new word: socialism. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production.

I would challenge the accepted assertion that socialism actually means government ownership of production, but it certainly results in just that.

There is a cause and effect relationship with Socialism (and all statist ideologies); the effect is state ownership and control of not only the means of production, but also the means of distribution. The cause is an abandonment of both individual and property rights... for the sake of the "common/greater good".

The term "socialism" is being increasingly used to mean statism.

And, further, the term "statist" has different meanings to different people.

It does get confusing, doesn't it?

On this scale:

Total Government|100%|------------------------------|0%|Anarchy

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Monarchism (and others) are all statist ideologies. They all reside on the side of the scale with 100% government control. Would you disagree?

If you agree, then Statism is clearly a category, not an actual ideology, and nearly all political ideologies fall into the category of statism.

Theist and Non-Theist are two categories very similar to the categories of Statism and Non-Statism. The theist category covers many religions, you would be equally accurate referring to the Christian religion as theist as you would in referring to Mormonism as theist. Non-Theist is more narrow, as is non-statism. There are only two real categories of Non-Theism, Atheism and Anti-Theism. In this metaphor, Anti-Theism is the equivalent to Anarchy in that both seek to destroy their counterparts of Theism and Government.

 

[PLC1]

I would challenge the accepted assertion that socialism actually means government ownership of production, but it certainly results in just that.

There is a cause and effect relationship with Socialism (and all statist ideologies); the effect is state ownership and control of not only the means of production, but also the means of distribution. The cause is an abandonment of both individual and property rights... for the sake of the "common/greater good".


On this scale:

Total Government|100%|------------------------------|0%|Anarchy

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Monarchism (and others) are all statist ideologies. They all reside on the side of the scale with 100% government control. Would you disagree?

If you agree, then Statism is clearly a category, not an actual ideology, and nearly all political ideologies fall into the category of statism.

Theist and Non-Theist are two categories very similar to the categories of Statism and Non-Statism. The theist category covers many religions, you would be equally accurate referring to the Christian religion as theist as you would in referring to Mormonism as theist. Non-Theist is more narrow, as is non-statism. There are only two real categories of Non-Theism, Atheism and Anti-Theism. In this metaphor, Anti-Theism is the equivalent to Anarchy in that both seek to destroy their counterparts of Theism and Government.

All of that makes sense if you buy into the paradigm of a one dimensional right to left model, where one extreme is total control by the government (North Korea, as an example), the other extreme being no government at all (anarchy, as in Somalia), with most nations falling somewhere in the middle, and most US voters somewhat centrist.

There is a big government to small government continuum, to be sure. Yes, socialism would be on the big government end of the spectrum, not necessarily on the extreme, but certainly to the left of center.

There is an authoritarian to libertarian continuum as well, in a different dimension, a different plane altogether. Think of it as the Y axis, as opposed to the X axis, and you have a two dimensional model.

A socialist, for example, is someone who likes to see the government in control of the economy, but not necessarily in control of people's lives in other ways. A socialist might be on the libertarian side of the social scale, while being quite statist in philosophy.

It is quite possible, for example, to be anti gun control, pro choice, pro homosexual marriage, pro legalization of pot, ant still be in favor of government running the economy, e.g., socialist.

It is also quite possible to want the government to stay out of the economy, limit taxation, balance the budget, limit its size and power, yet still control people's lives through being pro gun control, anti gay marriage, pro life, and anti legalization.

Some of the issues that are said to be "conservative" are actually authoritarian, which logically requires a more powerful government rather than a limited one.

The world is not limited to one dimension. Most of us live in a three dimensional world.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is quite possible, for example, to be anti gun control, pro choice, pro homosexual marriage, pro legalization of pot, ant still be in favor of government running the economy, e.g., socialist.

It is also quite possible to want the government to stay out of the economy, limit taxation, balance the budget, limit its size and power, yet still control people's lives through being pro gun control, anti gay marriage, pro life, and anti legalization.

Anyone who thinks that way is foolish.

If you give government the power to control the economy, they will use the economy to control your social behavior.

If you give the government control over the social, they will use it to control the economy and so on.

The only answer is to have a limited government who's responsible for the protection of the rights of its citizens and nothing else... the kind of government our nation was founded upon.

 

[PLC1]

Anyone who thinks that way is foolish.

If you give government the power to control the economy, they will use the economy to control your social behavior.

If you give the government control over the social, they will use it to control the economy and so on.

The only answer is to have a limited government who's responsible for the protection of the rights of its citizens and nothing else... the kind of government our nation was founded upon.

How is it, then, that the same people who claim to be in favor of limited government, i.e., "conservative", also want the government to control social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? Isn't that a contradictory position if you look at the issue as a one dimensional, right to left continuum? Logically, the limited government philosophy would leave "social" issues up to the individual, would be in favor of leaving such decisions as drug of choice and gun ownership up to the individual as well. Interestingly enough, the above issues get labeled as "right" or "left" in a kind of random pattern:

Gun control: left
Abortion control: right
Marriage control: right
Crack down on pot use: right
Government control of the economy: left

It's not consistent until you do look at issues on a three dimensional scale.

 

[samsara15]

You really are located on a moonbase. So in your world, a brief moment when the court handed down dictate after dictate of more and more government control over the states, is actually a moment of freedom?

You sound like the TVs in the book "1984". Less is more, work is freedom, we've increased your chocolate rations to 17 grams from 20.

My political stance is not at all unusual. It is what PLC1's political preference scales would call Left Libertarian.

Frankly, I think the states are a bad idea. States, and the electoral college, are anti-democratic institutions. The US is the only major demcracy in the world which still retains such an idea. State boundaries should be redrawn as necessary to conform with the one-person one-vote ideal.

 

[samsara15]

You might check out this political test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

On which I was:

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

 

[Dr.Who]

A socialist, for example, is someone who likes to see the government in control of the economy, but not necessarily in control of people's lives in other ways. A socialist might be on the libertarian side of the social scale, while being quite statist in philosophy.

In practice gov cannot control the economy without needing more and more control of people's lives in order for the system to work.