Liberal vs. Progressive

Albion · Mar 25, 2012

artybloke said:
Libertarian means the poor will always go hungry, the profiteers and the bankers will always swim in money and capitalism will continue to kill millions of people in the name of Mammon.

Gee, look how great Socialism has made things. No more poor, no greed, no war.

Libertarianism means dealing with real problems in a serious way, Arty, not by throwing a slogan at everything.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 25, 2012

Albion said:
Gee, look how great Socialism has made things. No more poor, no greed, no war.

As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for you?"

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 25, 2012

artybloke said:
Libertarian means the poor will always go hungry, the profiteers and the bankers will always swim in money and capitalism will continue to kill millions of people in the name of Mammon. It has nothing to with Christ, or the Biblical preference for the poor.

It does nothing but promote selfishness and greed.

"Classical liberals" were nothing but capitalists with a nice smile.

And "the Good News about Jesus the Messiah" has done nothing to stop the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer; and if all you're doing is promoting pie in the sky when you die, then you're not preaching the Kingdom: which doesn't start in heaven, it starts now, when we decide that it's OK to pay taxes to support the poor, or to stop global warming, or to make an environment in which everyone is secure and valued, and a child of God.

Beneath libertarianism is nothing but a boot in the face for the poor.

So Christianity is only good for "pie in the sky when you die", and not for changing people's worldviews, ethics and behaviors? :yellowcard:

Ok, I'll concede that legalistic and not loving Christianity is mostly only good for "pie in the sky when you die"... but how many WWMC members would promote that version? I guess none of us.

Depending on government instead of on God seems contrary to Jesus' message on so many levels. Did Jesus ever say petition Herod or Rome for more taxes to be used for anti-poverty programs? Did he ever say overthrow Rome and make Jesus King on Earth so he could take care of that himself?

No, he said feed the poor. He put it on us directly, as individuals and as the Church, not on the State.

Government can have a role in making rules that offer a more level playing field, possibly also in providing a "safety net", but it can't be the primary change agent and be consistent with Jesus' Kingdom of God message.

Otherwise you'll be a Dominionist who focuses on social justice instead of morality, but is still advocating coercion to enforce your morality instead of changing individual consciences. It isn't any better, it's just a different flavor of theocracy. It could also be idolatry: worshiping, praying and sacrificing to the State as a god.

Speculative · Mar 25, 2012

artybloke said:
Libertarian means the poor will always go hungry, the profiteers and the bankers will always swim in money and capitalism will continue to kill millions of people in the name of Mammon. It has nothing to with Christ, or the Biblical preference for the poor.

It does nothing but promote selfishness and greed.

"Classical liberals" were nothing but capitalists with a nice smile.

And "the Good News about Jesus the Messiah" has done nothing to stop the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer; and if all you're doing is promoting pie in the sky when you die, then you're not preaching the Kingdom: which doesn't start in heaven, it starts now, when we decide that it's OK to pay taxes to support the poor, or to stop global warming, or to make an environment in which everyone is secure and valued, and a child of God.

Beneath libertarianism is nothing but a boot in the face for the poor.

Excellent, excellent post. I agree with this. Libertarianism is a lie told by corporate predators trying to deceive working class people into giving up their government protections so they can be more easily exploited. It's a nice little fantasy to think that we'll fare better without the government "meddling in our affairs" until you wind up without a living wage, a 40 hour work week, clean drinking water, affordable health care, police, fire and ambulance services, clean air to breathe, safe working environment, parks, safe housing, roads, avenues for redress of grievances, etc.

No, thanks. I'll pay my taxes and take my governmental protections. I (and the vast majority of people) will be better off that way.

Albion · Mar 25, 2012

Speculative said:
Excellent, excellent post. I agree with this.

Not surprising. I do find that a lot of people have no idea what Libertarianism really is.

Libertarianism is a lie told by corporate predators trying to deceive working class people into giving up their government protections so they can be more easily exploited.

You'd think, if that were so, that they'd be in favor of free market policies. That, after all, is what Libertarianism wants. The corporate predators always want crony capitalism which is really socialism, i.e. special deals from the government to keep their companies from having to compete--the Solyndra syndrome.

It's a nice little fantasy to think that we'll fare better without the government "meddling in our affairs" until you wind up without a living wage, a 40 hour work week, clean drinking water, affordable health care, police, fire and ambulance services, clean air to breathe, safe working environment, parks, safe housing, roads, avenues for redress of grievances, etc.

We have that now, and Libertarianism has yet to be tried out.

Jase · Mar 26, 2012

Izdaari said:
So Christianity is only good for "pie in the sky when you die", and not for changing people's worldviews, ethics and behaviors?

Ok, I'll concede that legalistic and not loving Christianity is mostly only good for "pie in the sky when you die"... but how many WWMC members would promote that version? I guess none of us.

Well, as you say, the Conservative variety of Christianity so common in the United States does not change people's behavior/ethics for the better. It makes people worse. It's strictly for the pie in the sky, and the satisfaction of looking down on those who you don't believe deserve it.

Depending on government instead of on God seems contrary to Jesus' message on so many levels. Did Jesus ever say petition Herod or Rome for more taxes to be used for anti-poverty programs? Did he ever say overthrow Rome and make Jesus King on Earth so he could take care of that himself?

No, he said feed the poor. He put it on us directly, as individuals and as the Church, not on the State.

Well, he did say Give to Caesar what is Caesar's... taxes belonged to Caesar, so if Caesar demanded more taxes to help the poor, according to Jesus we should abide.

artybloke · Mar 26, 2012

Depending on government instead of on God seems contrary to Jesus' message on so many levels.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten all the teaching that says that governments are ordained of God for the good of society.

And, frankly, if we depended on the Christians to do it all, with the amount of right wing pro-capitalist Christianity in America, the poor would just get told it's their fault and given a pie-in-the-sky message forever.

Libertarianism means that poor people die. It's a murderous ideology.

artybloke · Mar 26, 2012

Izdaari said:
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for you?"

Well - let me see now:

Socialist government in England provided us with universal health care (until the Tory libertarianists started attacking it): it's still one of the best health care systems in the world. We have welfare systems that mean the poor don't die and the disabled are supported. We have an education system that while not perfect, is a heck of a lot better than yours.

All because of socialism and people paying taxes.

Until the monetarists started ripping social society to shreds and causing untold misery, that is.

How's it working for the poor in America then?

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

artybloke said:
Well - let me see now:

Socialist government in England provided us with universal health care (until the Tory libertarianists started attacking it): it's still one of the best health care systems in the world. We have welfare systems that mean the poor don't die and the disabled are supported. We have an education system that while not perfect, is a heck of a lot better than yours.

All because of socialism and people paying taxes.

Until the monetarists started ripping social society to shreds and causing untold misery, that is.

How's it working for the poor in America then?

It might be a better discussion if we stuck to trying to understand Libertarianism rather than trying to put a pretty face on a failed Socialist system.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
I think you will find that most progressives, liberals, and other leftists would say the exact same thing.

You'd think so, but in practice we find that it's not so. It's rare that the Left argues for individual freeedom. More security, less worry, more income, equality, etc. sure. Freedom, not so much so.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 26, 2012

artybloke said:
You seem to have conveniently forgotten all the teaching that says that governments are ordained of God for the good of society.

That much is not in dispute. I'm not an anarchist, and neither are the vast majority of libertarians (anarchists are a subset of libertarians comprising perhaps 5-10%). But how limited or expansive a role for government best accomplishes God's good purposes? That's where we differ.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
Yes, the communist Hutterites are quite disgusting folks. So were the communist Tolstoyans in Russia. Please don't make the mistake of equating communism with Marxist interpretations of how communism is achieved. There are plenty of communist movements that are non-Marxist in orientation.

Fair enough. However, our friend Arty is a proud self-proclaimed Marxist.

And let's also not conflate classical liberals with anarchists, and Christian libertarians with Randians.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
On the contrary, they believe that such things are essential preconditions for realizing actual freedom. Perhaps you should reread my post since I've edited it.

Edit indeed!

Anyway, we disagree on the facts of history and political philosophy, it appears. Classical Liberalism and modern Liberalism differ in more ways than information.

Modern liberalism isn't liberalism at all but a milder form of Socialism. All its guiding values--and most of its political initiatives--are Marxist in origin. To that extent, Liberals or Progressives define freedom in group terms, never in individual terms; and it is always freedom to live as the government determines is best. That's not freedom.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
Yes, the communist Hutterites are quite disgusting folks. So were the communist Tolstoyans in Russia. Please don't make the mistake of equating communism with Marxist interpretations of how communism is achieved. There are plenty of communist movements that are non-Marxist in orientation.

But you are making a fundamental mistake here, too. Communitarians like Hutterites are not Communists because theirs is a voluntary association and exists for a different purpose than Marxism strives for.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
I think you will find that most progressives, liberals, and other leftists would say the exact same thing. They simply have a different understanding of the possible sources of coercive authority in society, that is informed by advancements in our understanding of how the natural world, societies, and economies work that we have gained since the Enlightenment. The only difference between a "classical liberal" and a "modern liberal" is one of information. A "modern liberal" is someone with the basic worldview of a "classical liberal" plus the above-mentioned gains in knowledge. "Libertarians" are basically leftists, no different in fundamental review from more mainstream leftists. The comparatively superficial difference in policy preferences is nothing more than a consequence of a different understanding of where coercive authority can come from and how it can operate. For "libertarians" and other leftists to be attacking each other when they share the same basic idea of freeing mankind from oppression is counterproductive. For "libertarians" and other leftists to be pretending acting as though their respective others are somehow closet authoritarians is rank intellectual dishonesty. It's one thing to believe that the others' policy preferences will have an opposite effect from what they say it will. It's another thing entirely to claim that their motives are any different from your own. Libertarians and progressives would both agree, I think, that "liberty" does not extend to the liberty to coerce other people. Our respective policy preferences and circumstances in which we are willing to accept state intervention simply come from our respective understandings of where coercion may originate.

I think there's a lot of truth in what you say with regard to those Modern Liberals who are actually liberal. I differ with them in my assessment of their policy prescriptions, but consider them loyal opposition and allies on certain issues, not enemies. I question their results, not their motives.

However, not so much WRT more radical progressives who prioritize equality ahead of liberty to a "by any means necessary" extreme. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, that way lies the worst excesses of the French Revolution and eventually North Korea. Since I am radically opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, whether from the Left or the Right, even tiny steps in that direction scare me.

And I am personally a Classical Liberal who will happily acknowledge John Stuart Mill in my intellectual heritage. Robespierre not so much, I prefer Edmund Burke, who always thought of himself as a liberal despite being claimed by modern conservatives.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
You're making the mistake of equating communism with Marxism.

Well, not exactly, but it's important not to treat every communal society as Marxist or Communist. Those which are voluntary associations, usually religious ones, cannot be Communist because they exist for a different reason altogether and also because they do not make coercion, violence, force, etc. a part of their modus operandi or aspire to control the whole of society. There actually is very little they have in common.

That said, let's not make this a debate about Communism.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
You're assuming that coercion, violence, force, or total social control are essential attributes of communism. But they're not.

I think they are, both in origin and in practice. It's an essential of the movement.

I would argue that, since communism is the absence of social classes,

It is not the absence of social classes. It merely projects that there might be a time in the future in which such a thing could happen if we allow them dictatorial power to rearrange society by force in the present.

Albion · Mar 26, 2012

Izdaari said:
I think there's a lot of truth in what you say with regard to those Modern Liberals who are actually liberal. I differ with them in my assessment of their policy prescriptions, but consider them loyal opposition and allies on certain issues, not enemies. I question their results, not their motives.

However, not so much WRT more radical progressives who prioritize equality ahead of liberty to a "by any means necessary" extreme. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, that way lies the worst excesses of the French Revolution and eventually North Korea. Since I am radically opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, whether from the Left or the Right, even tiny steps in that direction scare me.

I agree. I'm always surprised and saddened when I encounter people who are willing to trade off liberty for a temporary solution to some minor social problem because they are the first to complain about the loss of freedom afterwards.

hedrick · Mar 26, 2012

I've thought of myself as libertarian at times, but what I really mean is that I'm more wary of the use of State power than either current party. However that doesn't mean moving to a state like Somalia, where we have a bunch of warlords or robber barons with no protection. Nor does it mean there's no "safety net." A lot of people I know take a very skeptical view of many of the activities by the current US government, both in terms of the tendency to control people, its tendency to be more worried about controlling average people than the ones we really need to be protected against, and the effectiveness of programs whose stated goal is to help people. Libertarianism sounds like an alternative. But I doubt most of the people I know would really want a nation with no protection against private power and no help for people who need it.

I think if I were creating a party, it would be more likely to be called the constitutional party than the libertarian party. But what I really want is something like the Vulcan system, where one of the three houses is the Expunging Group. A vote of 1/4 of the group is sufficient to remove any law. Laws should be demonstrated to be effective in meeting their stated targets if they are to survive.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 26, 2012

Beren Erchamion said:
Well, that's just it--I'm not sure that many of the people whom you might claim "prioritize equality ahead of liberty" actually do. Believing that social equality is a necessary precondition for liberty (as I do--though I also reject violence as a means to that end) is not the same as making it a higher priority than liberty.

I understand.

And let's keep in mind that not all who claim to be liberals or progressives necessarily are, any more than Fred Phelps's work actually represents Christian teachings despite his claim to.

Yes, indeed. I see entirely too many like Phelps on both the Left and the Right.

Liberal vs. Progressive

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads