Liberal vs. Progressive

hedrick said:

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.

Click to expand...

But of course that wouldn't be libertarianism.

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.

Click to expand...

That's reasonable. What I ask people to do is not view Libertarianism as an all or nothing approach to problem-solving. Our lives will be over before we could dismantle all the government controls over our lives, even if we wanted that, but who else is even arguing for small steps in the right direction? No one.

Beren Erchamion said:

Communism is very much the end result, the absence of class distinctions. You're describing one of the processes by which some have suggested that this result might be attained. Others believe that the same result is properly obtained through different means, usually without the use of coercion of any sort.

Click to expand...

Well, that's all theory, you know. In practice, every form of socialism utilizes force because it has to if it wants to achieve its goals.

Beren Erchamion said:

And again, the existence of the Hutterites, of band societies, of the Tolstoyans, of the various secular communes scattered across the Americas and Europe, of kibbutzim, and others, strongly indicate otherwise.

Click to expand...

Wrong. They are not socialists of any sort, as I've explained before. You didn't engage on that discussion, so there's nothing more to add.

LuxMundi said:

I would say that I was 'Liberal' but I would distinguish this from being 'Progressive'. Is this a usual differentiation?

Click to expand...

Actually the true, classical 'liberals' are quite different from the statists usurping the term ... what American 'liberals' advocate has little to do with liberty just as what 'progressives' advocate has little to do with progress and is really just an effort to reestablish the tyranny of the state.

BondiHarry said:

Actually the true, classical 'liberals' are quite different from the statists usurping the term ... what American 'liberals' advocate has little to do with liberty just as what 'progressives' advocate has little to do with progress and is really just an effort to reestablish the tyranny of the state.

Click to expand...

Well, actually that latter part is right on the money. The word originally meant believing that slowly but surely society would be changed until the dictators had made it into something like a "workers' paradise." It didn't mean changing for the better in general terms; there is an implied goal at the end and it's not a nice one.

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

No clue where you got that hogwash. It's the left I see supporting the 1st Amendment. It's the right wing lunatics I see pushing for a theocracy, or as Santorum put it, anyone who isn't a Christian leave the country.

Jase said:

No clue where you got that hogwash.

Click to expand...

Many years of study, several advanced degrees, you know. How about you?

It's the left I see supporting the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

Oh, you must be referring to the people who shout down conservative speakers on campus, throw glitter and powder on people whose views are different from theirs, burn houses in the Pacific Northwest, and work real hard to intimidate the sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows. Them?

Albion said:

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

Click to expand...

I do too, and that's why I decided to join in and help share the truth about it. I really hate to see people who should know better deceived into following a political philosophy which will be very harmful to them, and to the vast majority of Americans.

I hear all the right-wing extremists braying about liberty and quoting Ben Franklin, but I don't see a whole lot of liberty in drinking poison water because Exxon is fracking next to your house or because some deranged yahoo shoots you because you were walking through his neighborhood wearing a hoodie. I prefer more liberty for people who play well with others, not for greedy, exploitative, corporatists and psychopathic gun nuts.

Speculative said:

I do too, and that's why I decided to join in and help share the truth about it. I really hate to see people who should know better deceived into following a political philosophy which will be very harmful to them, and to the vast majority of Americans.

I hear all the right-wing extremists braying about liberty and quoting Ben Franklin, but I don't see a whole lot of liberty in drinking poison water because Exxon is fracking next to your house or because some deranged yahoo shoots you because you were walking through his neighborhood wearing a hoodie. I prefer more liberty for people who play well with others, not for greedy, exploitative, corporatists and psychopathic gun nuts.

Click to expand...

Well, you are speaking of right-wing extemists and an assortment of others there, but not Libertarians, so let's keep our philosophies straight, shall we? By the way, if all those things you don't like have happened, it's because of the two parties that are running America and have done so for many decades--not Libertarianism, which has yet to be tried.

Albion said:

Well, you are speaking of right-wing extemists and an assortment of others there, but not Libertarians, so let's keep our philosophies straight, shall we? By the way, if all those things you don't like have happened, it's because of the two parties that are running America and have done so for many decades--not Libertarianism, which has yet to be tried.

Click to expand...

There's not much of a difference. The Libertarian Party ran Bob Barr--a right wing extremist--as their presidential candidate in 2008. Thom Hartmann--one of the best in the business--described libertarians in this way:

Thom Hartmann said:

A libertarian is just a Republican that wants to smoke dope and get laid

Click to expand...

Overly simplistic perhaps, but still pretty accurate.

The reason Libertarianism has never been fully implemented is because most people can see what a colossal failure it would be. The current system may be loaded with problems, but that doesn't mean we should try something that we know from the start would be worse.

There's nothing coercive about Marxism. The state capitalism of Russia was not communism.

artybloke said:

There's nothing coercive about Marxism.

Click to expand...

Read Marx before you make a comment like that.

It's not called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for nothing.

Albion said:

Read Marx before you make a comment like that.

It ain't called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for nuttin'

Click to expand...

Do you do the thing with the Bible? Take things out of context and make it say the exact opposite of what it means?

Speculative said:

There's not much of a difference. The Libertarian Party ran Bob Barr--a right wing extremist--as their presidential candidate in 2008.

Click to expand...

I don't expect that you know this, but Barr couldn't get the votes to be nominated (over an anarcho-capitalist opponent) until he made a deal for Vice President with the third-place candidate. The nomination was not supported thereafter by many Libertarians. IOW, you have a very weak example there on which to make a case. But it was a Bob Barr who had renounced his previous Republican policy positions. You can't make a sweeping indictment of a whole Party over time by finding a weak example involving one person, not any more than I can argue that the Democrat Party is totally extremist because it has fielded ex-Klansmen like Sen. Robert Byrd.

Overly simplistic perhaps, but still pretty accurate.

Click to expand...

Yeh, yeh, we know that old joke quite well. Pssst, don't tell anyone else but it's a J-o-k-e.

Albion said:

I don't expect that you know this, but Barr couldn't get the votes to be nominated (over an anarcho-capitalist opponent) until he made a deal for Vice President with the third-place candidate. The nomination was not supported thereafter by many Libertarians. IOW, you have a very weak example there on which to make a case. But it was a Bob Barr who had renounced his previous Republican policy positions. You can't make a sweeping indictment of a whole Party over time by finding a weak example involving one person, not any more than I can argue that the Democrat Party is totally extremist because it has fielded ex-Klansmen like Sen. Robert Byrd.

Click to expand...

Then your argument is with your fellow libertarians--not me. That kind of back room haggling happens all the time in party politics. Barr had to have some pretty strong support to be in position to make a deal in the first place, so he is not exactly a bad example at all by which to judge the party, considering he was the standard-bearer. And the claim that the second place guy was an anarcho-capitalist just further demonstrates the amount of harmful extremism within the movement.

I suppose you can go ahead and disown John Stossel, Dennis Miller, Ron Paul and all the other guys who claim to be libertarian or to promote libertarian policy, but the truth is that these are the people who represent the movement to the rest of us.

Yeh, yeh, we know that old joke quite well. Pssst, don't tell anyone else but it's a J-o-k-e.

Click to expand...

Yes, we all know that it is a joke. The reason we laugh is because it's true.

Albion said:

Many years of study, several advanced degrees, you know. How about you?

Click to expand...

Apparently those degrees aren't helping much. By the way. You do realize you are in the liberal forum, and you are not a liberal right?

Oh, you must be referring to the people who shout down conservative speakers on campus, throw glitter and powder on people whose views are different from theirs, burn houses in the Pacific Northwest, and work real hard to intimidate the sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows. Them?

Click to expand...

A few immature outliers do not represent all liberals. And again, you're in the liberal forum. Be careful with your attacks or this thread will be closed.

Speculative said:

Then your argument is with your fellow libertarians--not me.

Click to expand...

No, I was helping you understand the nature of the party. I hope it has now been made clearer.

And the claim that the second place guy was an anarcho-capitalist just further demonstrates the amount of harmful extremism within the movement.

Click to expand...

I see you are prepared to find fault no matter what. First, you claim the party is far right; now you switch to the idea that it's too far the other way. Must be a very dynamic party if it has people all across the political spectrum like that, huh?

I suppose you can go ahead and disown John Stossel, Dennis Miller, Ron Paul and all the other guys who claim to be libertarian or to promote libertarian policy, but the truth is that these are the people who represent the movement to the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Why would I 'disown' these people?

Yes, we all know that it is a joke.

Click to expand...

It's actually a joke on Republicans.

Albion said:

No, it was your mischaracterization of the nature of the party, which I hope has now been corrected.

Click to expand...

One of us is misrepresenting the party, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's me. Considering the harm libertarian ideas would cause to the nation, I can certainly see why you oppose them being exposed and accurately represented.

It's actually a joke on Republicans.

Click to expand...

Um, no. It isn't.

Speculative said:

One of us is misrepresenting the party, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's me.

Click to expand...

If you say so.

Speculative said:

I suppose you can go ahead and disown John Stossel, Dennis Miller, Ron Paul and all the other guys who claim to be libertarian or to promote libertarian policy, but the truth is that these are the people who represent the movement to the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Whatever for? I like all three of those gentlemen, and in their own ways they are all effective spokesmen for libertarian ideas. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with everything they say, anymore than a given liberal necessarily agrees with everything Nancy Pelosi or Chris Matthews says.

Btw, Dennis Miller is a libertarian Republican, not a LP libertarian... but I still like him. (Technically, you could say the same of Ron Paul since he's running for the GOP nomination... but Ron Paul was the LP nominee in 1988, and his views are still in line with the LP platform. Dennis Miller, OTOH, is too pragmatic and too much of a conservative to be an LP kind of guy.)