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.
That's impossible... Your views fit into one or more categories of philosophy/ideology.
Sticking with your original definition of "progressive" as "Altruist, Collectivist, Statist," I would only consider myself altruistic, but only marginally so.
Either you're a altruist or you're not. If you think concerning yourself with the needs of others is a moral obligation or social duty, then you are an altruist. If you concern yourself with the needs of others but feel no obligation to do so, then you're not.
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.
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal?
No, all of these examples I came up with myself, strictly in response to your question, in light of your avatar.
Well they are popular examples cited to argue for Socialism in the US. The General Welfare clause does allow for certain "Altruistic, Collectivist" programs but the critical litmus test is the universality it offers the public: Roads benefit everyone equally and there are no restrictions on who can use them, Military benefits all Americans equally by protecting the rights of all Americans equally, same with police and fire.
My avatar? Yes I'm a fan of Rand.
I definitely do not support socialism; the free market is nearly always better.
Nearly? When is Socialism 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.
Altruism was just one part of the definition I offered. 99% of people who are religious are altruists, but they are not all progressives. Its a fallacy of sampling to reach the conclusion you did.
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.
Sometimes? They have a deficit every year... No government interference? Well I guess when you are owned and operated by the government its not interference.
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.
Again the sampling fallacy.
But I'm not so sure that great expenses spent on space exploration nor the military is a good idea.
Military is a constitutional expense, whether or not we need to spend as much as we do is certainly open for debate but the benefits to all of society, especially in the area of medicine, is not debatable.
I have a soft spot for space exploration so that's one program I am a hypocrite for supporting because its not constitutional but it does provide advancements in science and technology.
Now when did I ever diss capitalism as a whole?
Was just the sense I was getting from the responses.
But the actual ending of slavery also had some altruistic intentions to it, wouldn't you think? People weren't THAT callous back then.
Had the emancipation proclomation hurt the north more so than the south in the midst of the civil war, do you really think Lincoln would have passed it? Any good intentions were strictly a side benefit that would have been trumped if the act stood to hurt the north in its time of civil war.
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 agree....
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.
...And the government for sueing banks over redlining, instituting the CRA and for using Fannie and Freddie as an Enron style warehouse for CDS's.
Even worse when it's tried to be legislated away.
I consider it tyranny but some consider that language too strong.
Don't tell me I don't care for rational self-interest, because I do.
Wasn't my intent.
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.
Again, wasn't my intent to misinterpret your words. ANY progressivism is too much in my book, especially when we're talking about business and/or politics.
