Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act
I definitely do not support any ideology, or anything of the sort. Sticking with your original definition of "progressive" as "Altruist, Collectivist, Statist," I would only consider myself altruistic, but only marginally so. I consider myself an independent, although I generally lean more to the left than to the right. Important exceptions include the economy and the free market, generally, and cultural issues.
No, all of these examples I came up with myself, strictly in response to your question, in light of your avatar. I don't think ANY of my teachers have ever said anything remotely related about the postal service or even public roads; I got the idea from reviewing the constitution. And despite what you may think, I definitely do not support socialism; the free market is nearly always better.
But it was created on a premise of altruism, "the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest," which, by your own definition, would be progressive.
Yes, there are deficits sometime (probably a lot in the future tbh), but my point was that its goal is completely nonprofit with no government interference.
Of course, I never said otherwise. Still, it's still tax money being spent for an altruistic purpose, to help people move themselves and their things around for whatever reason they wish, which, using your definition, would be called progressive.
Of course I care if something is constitutional or not. I happen to think that a great, GREAT many programs today are massively unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the 10th amendment? But I'm not so sure that great expenses spent on space exploration nor the military is a good idea.
Now when did I ever diss capitalism as a whole? I have great faith in free markets, and think that the vast majority of the time, they operate much better than anything else possible. They also provide us with all the stuff we have today, as you said.
But the actual ending of slavery also had some altruistic intentions to it, wouldn't you think? People weren't THAT callous back then.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're too funny. Oh wait, you're serious?
Wow.
Well, then try reading my post again. Without the bank's trust of the government to provide bailouts, and without the government's willingness to do bailouts, the economic crisis would likely have been much less severe. I don't blame the banks much; I blame much more the people that agreed to the loans they couldn't pay off, and the government for being willing to bail out the banks.
Rational self interest is something that many people lack, unfortunately, and for some reason, people try to make others lose their rational self interest. Even worse when it's tried to be legislated away.
Don't tell me I don't care for rational self-interest, because I do.
Please don't deliberately misinterpret my words. I said "SLIGHTLY" more altrustic, that is, not willing to risk the entire economy. I didn't say nonprofit, because that would obviously be a contradiction.
Completely in agreement, except that people occasionally don't act in their economic self-interest, for weird reasons, especially in politics. Things like "personal philosophies" or like stuff often gets in the way.
I have read it, actually, but he never sounded so critical and pessimistic as that quote you gave in the pages I read. I could be mistaken, but I still think it was that Tyler guy instead.
That's seriously all you can come up with? I disagree with the Democrats on one issue, therefore I should not support the Democratic party? Then you bring up a whole new topic and call the Supreme Court nominee a racist?
.. 
Do you have any idea why this would be so? Why would a Boy Scout be a disadvantage? Perhaps because they are more often alligned with conservative political philosophies?
