Conservative=Regressive

[morningstar2651]

Says the so-called progressive. It's the "progressives" which are the regressives in terms of human rights.

That doesn't make sense...could you show us examples?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Aha! A backer of the Occupy movement! Welcome aboard sir!

Actually we need to start with baby steps, behavior at the supermarket for example. If we could just:

Get people to park between the lines,

Get the store to not obstruct the entrance with merchanise displays,

Get shoppers to stay of the way of others,

Get the store to stop blocking the aisles with merchandise displays,

Get people to have cash and cards ready at the checkout,

Get people to put shopping carts away properly;


We would be making huge strides in personal responsibility (and convincing me that man didn't just recently come out of the caves).

 

[PHenry42]

That doesn't make sense...could you show us examples?

Well, to them, "human rights" means primarily untaxed and unregulated free enterprise. Too bad that one didn't make it into the actual Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[PHenry42]

At least Communism is a topic most people are familiar with, since Communism dominated most of the twentieth century's history. If you're going to bring up an obscure academic like Sumner, and blame him for everthing wrong that happened in his time, I would expect his arguments to be better addressed than that. Especially since the intustrialization of the late nineteenth century which Reich identifies with Sumner, ugly though it sometimes was, made possible the cushy lives we enjoy in this country today.

Just like the industrialization carried out under Stalin made possible the (relatively) cushy lives in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. Therefore?

The industrialization you mention was made possible by technological progress, and would have happened regardless of what system was in place. The world did not magically boom into prosperity simply because an unregulated capitalist system was put into place.

You can "reject" the laws of nature, if you like. Nature has a funny way of reasserting herself though. She doesn't care what the law says, or what public opinon holds, but sooner or later she always finds a way to be heard.

Tell that to the Conservatives, who are way more anti-science than anyone else in this country.

 

[stamperben]

I had mentioned my belief of economic systems in a video I made a couple weeks ago. As far as I understand it, the difference between capitalism, socialism, and communism is merely how much money is given to the government to redistribute back to the government's constituents, which is how communism gets its equal share. The fault of it being that leaders tend to get corrupt and... well... take more than they should under a communistic society... >>

But that was just my opinion. I got slammed for it a while back because it's apparently not what communism is. That it's classless. Classless but still needs someone to lead. Unless you're doing a true communal style where everyone is in charge of the money and everyone divides it up equally with everyone supervising (and even that could result in some oligarchy if say, some people don't show up), there's still someone leading or someone that has to take charge of it.

There has never been any communist government anywhere, anytime in the history of the world.

 

[stamperben]

Says the so-called progressive. It's the "progressives" which are the regressives in terms of human rights.

So that's why the cause of equal rights for ALL mankind has been and continues to be championed by us? That might be why the conservative/regressives have recently taken the cause of same sex marriage to task?
Give me a break.

 

[Wolseley]

There has never been any communist government anywhere, anytime in the history of the world.

No, because there can never be anything resembling the "true Communism" that Marx liked to daydream about; human nature is simply not that altruistic. Everywhere it's been tried, Communism inevitably devolves into socially repressive, economically failed regimes that end up being beneficial for nobody except a small cadre of the ruling members of the party.

Communism is sort of like Prohibition---it looks good on paper, but in actual practice it just ain't gonna work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, because there can never be anything resembling the "true Communism" that Marx liked to daydream about; human nature is simply not that altruistic. Everywhere it's been tried, Communism inevitably devolves into socially repressive, economically failed regimes that end up being beneficial for nobody except a small cadre of the ruling members of the party.

Communism is sort of like Prohibition---it looks good on paper, but in actual practice it just ain't gonna work.

So it doesn't look terribly different than capitalistic corporatocracy then, in its natural outcomes I mean.

Unregulated human beings who accumulate power tend toward that corruption which power has a habit of naturally bringing. So whether communism or capitalism, human nature, laboring under sinful concupiscence, has a tendency to degenerate; and thus certain levels of regulation ought to exist in order to protect the weak from the powerful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PHenry42]

Meh, I maintain that the Soviet Union did exceptionally well, considering the circumstances. Ditto for Yugoslavia. Other Communist countries, not so much.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Just like the industrialization carried out under Stalin made possible the (relatively) cushy lives in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. Therefore?

The toll on human life was far less in the US and other Western countries, and for that matter, even in Russia under the czar. Also, it actually led to a higher standard of living because it was driven by demand for consumer goods, not industrialization for industrialization's sake.

The industrialization you mention was made possible by technological progress, and would have happened regardless of what system was in place. The world did not magically boom into prosperity simply because an unregulated capitalist system was put into place

Was it really a coincidence that it began in the time and place of Adam Smith and David Ricardo? Technological progress had been occuring for thousands of years, but the methods of production management implemented in 18th century Britain was unprecedented. Capitalism, if it means anything, means an industrialed economy. Even Marx understood that.

Tell that to the Conservatives, who are way more anti-science than anyone else in this country.

Was it the conservatives who had conniption fits when The Bell Curve was published?

 

[PHenry42]

The toll on human life was far less in the US and other Western countries, and for that matter, even in Russia under the czar. Also, it actually led to a higher standard of living because it was driven by demand for consumer goods, not industrialization for industrialization's sake.

Irrelevant. You implied that high economic growth proves a guy's ideas to be valid. Which, incidentally, would vindicate Stalin. Relative death tolls are irrelevant. Besides, Stalin's death toll was mainly due to political persecution, not economics.

Was it really a coincidence that it began in the time and place of Adam Smith and David Ricardo? Technological progress had been occuring for thousands of years, but the methods of production management implemented in 18th century Britain was unprecedented. Capitalism, if it means anything, means an industrialed economy. Even Marx understood that.

Yes, it was a coincidence. The rate of "technological process" that had occurred for thousands of years before was quite insignificant compared to something as truly revolutionary as a steam engine replacing human labour.

Capitalism and an industrial economy are not inherently connected. Adam Smith penned the Wealth of Nations at a time when the steam engine was still a curiosity. Nothing in the ideas he promotes requires mechanized production.

Was it the conservatives who had conniption fits when The Bell Curve was published?

Oooh, liberal rejection of a single book which the jury is still out on and is far from established science. Hardly compares with conservative rejection of evolution and global warming, two well-established scientific facts.

 

[stamperben]

No, because there can never be anything resembling the "true Communism" that Marx liked to daydream about; human nature is simply not that altruistic. Everywhere it's been tried, Communism inevitably devolves into socially repressive, economically failed regimes that end up being beneficial for nobody except a small cadre of the ruling members of the party.

Communism is sort of like Prohibition---it looks good on paper, but in actual practice it just ain't gonna work.

I tend to agree with you on this.

Now true democratic socialism on the other hand IS a goal to aim for.

 

[Sketcher]

That doesn't make sense...could you show us examples?

Humans have the right to life, liberty, and property. "Progressives" deny or seek to deny these rights in various ways:

Life: The unborn are denied this right.

Liberty: Speech codes (on universities as well as censorship laws, fairness doctrine, net neutrality), mandates concerning weapons storage and restricting carrying them (Chicago is particularly egregious).

Property: Overtaxation. Overregulation of what can be bought and sold. Eminent domain abuse.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Because they couldn't define communism if their lives depended on it.

How many hundreds of millions of people have to die in the name of various forms of "communism" before it becomes self evident that it's a bad idea?

They've had how many chances, but yet they still can't seem to get it right. Maybe it's because it doesn't work.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Humans have the right to life, liberty, and property. "Progressives" deny or seek to deny these rights in various ways:

Life: The unborn are denied this right.

Liberty: Speech codes (on universities as well as censorship laws, fairness doctrine, net neutrality), mandates concerning weapons storage and restricting carrying them (Chicago is particularly egregious).

Property: Overtaxation. Overregulation of what can be bought and sold. Eminent domain abuse.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement

Here's more examples. Historically, under more progressive presidents, one is also more likely to be forced to serve in the military.

That doesn't make sense...could you show us examples?

Wickard v. Filburne
Margaret Sanger
Eugenics
The Temperance Movement

Sedition Act of 1918
Espionage Act of 1917
(Both were signed by Woodrow Wilson)

 

[Wolseley]

So it doesn't look terribly different than capitalistic corporatocracy then, in its natural outcomes I mean.

The major difference is that capitalism allows the individual to rise in his standard of living through his own initiative, whereas in Communist regimes, the individual is stuck with what's mandated to him by the state. So instead of moving from a three-room apartment to a nice house in a suberb because you went from working on the loading dock to a middle-management position (or better yet, you started your own business), you spend the rest of your life living with six other people in a two-room shack with bad plumbing and a leaky roof, gutting fish in a commununal factory for fifteen hours a day at the rate of five kopecks per hour. Workers of the world, despair.

Unregulated human beings who accumulate power tend toward that corruption which power has a habit of naturally bringing. So whether communism or capitalism, human nature, laboring under sinful concupiscence, has a tendency to degenerate; and thus certain levels of regulation ought to exist in order to protect the weak from the powerful.

I quite agree, but it's not forms of government that will keep this in check. The only way to keep mankind's fallen nature from devolving into predatory exploitation is a firm belief in the teachings of Christ---the "Golden Rule", if you will
.

I tend to agree with you on this.

Now true democratic socialism on the other hand IS a goal to aim for.

Aim away, but you won't hit it. No one else has so far.

How many hundreds of millions of people have to die in the name of various forms of "communism" before it becomes self evident that it's a bad idea?

They've had how many chances, but yet they still can't seem to get it right. Maybe it's because it doesn't work.

Bingo. Give the man a $2.00 cigar and a gift certificate to the store of his choice.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The major difference is that capitalism allows the individual to rise in his standard of living through his own initiative, whereas in Communist regimes, the individual is stuck with what's mandated to him by the state. So instead of moving from a three-room apartment to a nice house in a suberb because you went from working on the loading dock to a middle-management position (or better yet, you started your own business), you spend the rest of your life living with six other people in a two-room shack with bad plumbing and a leaky roof, gutting fish in a commununal factory for fifteen hours a day at the rate of five kopecks per hour. Workers of the world, despair.



I quite agree, but it's not forms of government that will keep this in check. The only way to keep mankind's fallen nature from devolving into predatory exploitation is a firm belief in the teachings of Christ---the "Golden Rule", if you will.

And when the powerful are either not Christian or otherwise do not follow Jesus' teachings and kenotic ethos and continue exploit, suppress, oppress, and/or otherwise terrorize the weak and the poor? Shouldn't that civil authority which has the ability to pass law and put into effect regulation and protection, do so? If not for legal reasons alone, at the very least on the basis of human decency and because it's--quite, simply--the right and just thing to do?

Shouldn't the good, right and just thing be of the utmost importance?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oliverb]

And when the powerful are either not Christian or otherwise do not follow Jesus' teachings and kenotic ethos and continue exploit, suppress, oppress, and/or otherwise terrorize the weak and the poor? Shouldn't that civil authority which has the ability to pass law and put into effect regulation and protection, do so? If not for legal reasons alone, at the very least on the basis of human decency and because it's--quite, simply--the right and just thing to do?

Shouldn't the good, right and just thing be of the utmost importance?

-CryptoLutheran

Imperfection is the condition of our human nature. Men are tempted by dictatorial power under ANY form of government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The fallacy of progressivism, the fallacy of those who advocate for a regulatory administrative state, is in the belief that government will be a wonderful, non-threatening, servant of the citizenry and a force for good if only the right people are put in charge. Giving government the kind of power to shape society in the way you're talking about will never end well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Imperfection is the condition of our human nature. Men are tempted by dictatorial power under ANY form of government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The fallacy of progressivism, the fallacy of those who advocate for a regulatory administrative state, is in the belief that government will be a wonderful, non-threatening, servant of the citizenry and a force for good if only the right people are put in charge. Giving government the kind of power to shape society in the way you're talking about will never end well.

So it was wrong when anti child labor laws were put into effect? How about a federal minimum wage? Labor standards?

It would seem that such regulations have done pretty good in spite of having a tremendously imperfect government.

I don't imagine a wonderful utopia is just around the corner with the "right people in office". I just think that having some regulation to protect the powerless from the powerful are good things.

Saying that the government is fallible and therefore won't be able to do these things perfectly hardly seems like good enough reason to reject the implementation of safety nets and regulations to protect the weak, the poor and the downtrodden from unregulated powermongering and greed.

Laws against homicide and having a system of law which penalizes murderers and protecting the public from convicted murders haven't eliminated homicide; but it seems that some form of justice system is better than a Mad Max Wild West gun-slinging free-for-all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oliverb]

Saying that the government is fallible and therefore won't be able to do these things perfectly hardly seems like good enough reason to reject the implementation of safety nets and regulations to protect the weak, the poor and the downtrodden from unregulated powermongering and greed.

-CryptoLutheran

A Constitution limiting the power of government IS a good enough excuse. Fortunately we have one, and unfortunately progressives are intent on nullifying it.

Why are leftists so eager to throw away liberty, and turn the government into some kind of "enlightened despot?"