Progressive Ideology Destroys Everything It Touches

Right! That is surely reasonable stuff.

 

Illustrating that progressives believe that the "masses" are too mean, low, incapable and barbaric to seek education for themselves. Even though they did just fine at it before the progressives thrust the government run public education system upon them.

 

I agree for the most part, although I'd argue Roosevelt's central planning approach would be too vast for the current economy. Public works projects were understandable given the circumstances, but nowadays, what we need is better spending, not so much more of it.

We could cut spending by a considerable amount in various areas while pushing for more practical education spending.

If America dropped its role as world policeman while phasing out SS, we could implement an NHS and socialize higher education to the extent that Finland does while still spending considerably less overall.

We could dump all agricultural subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare. We could ban all bank bailouts.

It would be smaller but smarter government.

 

Restricting the majority from oppressing the minorities? There you go again--your white guilt is showing. How is it that the majority (whoever that represents) is oppressing the minorities? Is it also the majority who is restricting the minorities from bellying up to their tax dollars that are spent on the freebies and entitlements that keep those oppressed, unemployed, lazy, leech people from starving?

 

There is no such thing as a "financial responsibility to society". This concept falls under the umbrella of the social contract, which in turn can be used to justify any atrocity against the individual. The only legitimate financial transactions are those between individuals that are voluntary, contractual and open without fraud.

No, it is not. "Money" or wealth is the result of your own actions, it is the fruits of your labors. It is not separable.

What you describe is voluntary, personal contractual interaction. It does NOT require the use of public infrastructures. Even so, infrastructure can be funded through voluntary contractual interactions and not forced coercion via taxation. For example, roads are a part of military expenditures-. It is the reason the national highway system was founded- reasoning that extends back to George Washington himself (Rome, really). Thus, the road system should be qualified as a military expenditure, and can be quantified as a basic annual fee to be paid as a citizen as it entails protection of basic liberty (The justifiable existence of government).

It is a flawed principal. Coercion via taxation is not justifiable. Once you examine and understand the principal os of self ownership then you either believe in the right of the individual, or you do not.

Peruse the link I gave you. It builds upon the axiomatic truth of self ownership.Maybe I am wrong Serfin', but it appears that unlike many others you seem open to discussion regarding you belief system and self examination and exploration of the flaws it contains, maybe less dogmatic than others. I hope so- it is a rare quality to find on this board. Join the discussion in that thread, and ask questions there. I encourage it, as long as you are being open and honest about them.

 

That by itself should be a major priority. We are allowing other countries to cut their military spending and cut taxes for their local business ventures, while the American consumer and businessmen pay for protecting the schlubs who are taking work away from the middle class.

Not sure that SS needs to be cut, the way it designed was fine, what went wrong was congress allowed itself to borrow from the SS piggy bank, and hasn't paid it back. SS is fine if the funds are returned, and it is set back to the way it was supposed to be run before it was raided. Even in it's current state it's funded for better than the next 30 years with no modifications.

Totally agree on all three of those points.

I still think we need a massive influx in infrastructure, that by itself would get people off of public assistance where they get money for no effort. I think it is a government responsibility to stabilize the economy during drastic downturns, and that's best accomplished with heavy spending, but through building something, rather than just giving people a check every week, it pays double dividends in that it keeps the economy from collapse, while improving our industrial base.

Once the economy recovers, you gradually wean people off of government projects and raise taxes moderately to pay off the debt you incurred. That is what we should have done during the Bush years, instead of tax cuts, used those extra funds to work down our debt so that if/when the next collapse hit we would have been better prepared to fund it.

I know it wasn't totally Bush's fault, congress had to pass those tax cuts too but we need to be realistic and accept that those tax cuts back then were a huge mistake. There was no good reason for them at the time.

 

It's not just white people that oppress.

If you want to see a more extreme example of what happens in countries without minority protections, look at the Arab Spring.

If America didn't have protections for minority rights, you'd see similar things happen here that have happened to Christians in countries like Egypt.

It's not about white guilt. It's about the natural human tendency toward tribalism.

It's also about how an unchecked democracy becomes mob rule.

 

Thanks, since our discussion is probably more relevant in that thread, I'll post my response over there.

 

So you claim that the Marxist led unions had nothing to do with this? Why is it that the cost of pensions and entitlements have killed cities like Detroit or the individual states like California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and other States dominated by Progressive Democrats.

 

So what you are saying here is that anyone not considered to be a minority is an oppressor. Okay, I get it.

Comparing the class structure of America (with America having a low, middle and high) classes with that of Arab nations, I would say that Arab nations are mired in an exclusive low class peasants. I still don't know what these minority protections consist of, and or who is going to protection them from what.

Again, what exactly are these rights that minorities are being excluded from?

Oh I see now, you're concerned that these lower class minorities are subject to creating a culture of their own that veers toward tribalism. So again, what protections when enacted by the majority do you suppose would help these tribes to make it in the modern world of the 21st century?

You mean like the unchecked power of the current administration as its running roughshod over the American people via the 7 or 8 government scandals? Perhaps not labeled as a mob rule as much as it being a tyrannical oligarchy.

 

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft

If you don't wish to pay taxes towards x,y,z but are forced to by threat of kidnapping and detainment then how is that different than robbery/theft?

Did the recipients of that money earn it laboring in the individual's stead? Nope. Someone other than the laborer now has those funds.

This is not an extreme concept. It is an accurate one that Ethereal is applying. You just don't like it because you're of the belief that we SHOULD all want the money to go to those programs you support (and not to ones you don't). You like it so everyone should like it. That's authoritarian. You can excuse it by using terms like civilized or community but it still doesn't change the act or make something immoral and wrong suddenly moral.

Robin Hood robbed from the tax wagons. He didn't rob people. That's why he was a hero. The people were capable of living without the lord and lady's benevolence.

 

Whoops wrong thread.

 

You don't seem to know what the heck you are talking about. LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE are basically the same thing.

The Federal Reserve is a good thing. You believe otherwise just because Ron Paul and other people with a history of being wrong said so?

Depressions are caused by Republican policies. Check the HISTORY books.

Our current economic problems are related to Reaganomics, which we are STILL PRACTICING!!

PROHIBITION was a movement by rural protestants who were the equivalent to today's TEA PARTY, for God's sake!

 

No, you don't get it, and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

 

Oh boy! Might want to make sure you know what you're talking about before casting aspersions...

Let's try some definitions:


Liberal: b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


Progressive: Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

One is an old ideology based on small government and personal freedom first advocated during the Age of Enlightment, the latter is a reactionary movement evoked against the "masters of industry" and lead to some of the largest increases in the scope and scale of government in modern history.

Liberalism is a term that's been horribly bastardized by American politics and very few people who claim to be one actually are.

 

This thread is about PROGRESSIVISM in the United States, where PROGRESSIVE means the same as LIBERAL.

 

You must tire easily since you have yet to explain jack shiite.

 

Reagan was perhaps our greatest President. His economic policies were right on, but due to being lied to by the democratic house who promised to cut spending, the net benefit of his policies were diminished. His building up the military was both necessary and constitutional by the way.

Spending has been the problem for the last 50 years. At least 70% of the blame for that can be blamed on the dimocrats.

 

Reagan began the period at which Wall Street took over government.

It wasn't the first time this happened, but it was the first time since the 1920s.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but you'd be hard pressed to find a society that doesn't have involuntary taxation.

 

I like both avatars!

 

PROGRESSIVE REGRESSIVES.......

Contemporary liberals do not believe in progress. The Progressives' faith in progress was rooted in their faith in science, as one can see especially in the European thinkers whom they admired, such as Hagel and Comte. When science is seen as just one perspective among many, then progress itself comes into question.

The idea of progress presupposes that the end result is superior to the point of departure, but contemporary liberals are generally wary of expressing any sense of the superiority of the West, whether intellectually, politically, or in any other way. They are therefore disinclined to support any foreign policy venture that contributes to the strength of America or the West.

Liberal domestic policy follows the same principle. It tends to elevate the "other" to moral superiority over against those the Founders would have called the decent and the honorable, the men of wisdom and virtue. The more a person is lacking, the greater is his or her moral claim on society. The deaf, the blind, the disabled, the stupid, the improvident, the ignorant, and even (in a 1984 speech of presidential candidate Walter Mondale) the sad--those who are lowest are extolled as the sacred other.

Thomas G. West

 

You've got your political parties muddled with your ideologies.

And by hard pressed you mean that no such thing exists, just like state-less societies don't (at least not in the modern era).

The underlying premise behind tax=theft, may be true but it's unproductive and a nonstarter.

 

Uh, ok.

Careful not to use a dictionary or encyclopedia, I wouldn't want anything to infringe upon your clearly narrow and immutable world view.