August 30, 2012... RIP Libertarian Cause
Submitted by Progressives4Paul on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 06:23in
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/august-30...
don't read this unless, of course, you enjoy feelings of rage and/or severe depression.
August 30, 2012... RIP Libertarian Cause
»
- Login to post comments
I notice...
that no one wants to talk about a specific example of how libertarians and progressive could make a policy compromise on an economic issue without compromising anyone's principles and at the same time advancing both agendas simultaneously.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Example of compromise policy which does not compromise principle
The discussion here is getting multi-layered and somewhat abstract. here is an example of how one might construct a coalition policy which is not ideal to either libertarians or progressives but not a violation of principle. The numbers are flexible and can to be negotiated:
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/libertari...
Perhaps we could use this as an experiment. When the policy is better than what you will get from either major party let me know.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
You know
if everyone continues to down vote this post, i might end up breaking my record for the most unpopular blog in Daily Paul history.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Good luck!!
Even with being an asshole, I've never had one down-voted so much. You are my hero.
(sarcasm) :)
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
The idea of taking over the
The idea of taking over the republican party and influencing a major political party is just as important in the end as the presidency in it's self. This country on rare occasions had a viable third party. If one is no longer viable... then we must reshape the established ones to conform to our ideals. Basically what I mean to say is how many more freedom loving candidates can we put in office with a party we control. We are the future and ideas can not be stopped.
Neo Can Field This One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHyKDrGzn-I&feature=related
"Why, Mr. Anderson?
Why do you do it?
Why get up?
Why keep fighting?
Do you believe you're fighting for something?
For more than your survival?
Can you tell me what it is?
Do you even know?
Is it freedom?
Or truth?
Perhaps peace?
Could it be for love?...
Why, Mr. Anderson, Why?
Why do you persist?"
"Because I choose to..."
"Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books...Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: 'I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't. I can. And my children will."
-Jimmy Stewart
Why don't you
commies ever explain what gives you the right to decide how everyone else should live? What makes your ideas and morality better than anyone elses? Why do you never acknowledge the INEVITABLE abuses of the monster state? Why do you love to push other people around and butt into their lives, envy their property?
A question for the OP
The entire libertarian philosophy is founded on a few basic principles, from which everything else follows.
1. A person is the original owner of his/her own body, as well as all other property which he/she has obtained through homesteading (the taking of unowned property) or through voluntary exchange with other persons.
2. For one to own property is for one to have the exclusive right to use that property, and in any way one pleases, provided that one does not infringe on the property rights of another person.
3. Aggression (or, what is the same thing, the violation of property rights) is wrong, and any person who engages in aggression is liable for any damages he causes to the victim.
Now my question: what are the fundamental principles of progressivism?
And also: what differentiates progressivism (in terms of principles) from other forms of statism?
Progressive principles
I would not presume to define progressivism for all progressives but here are my thoughts:
First my principles are grounded in my faith tradition as a Christian. Progressivism is a is a secularized version of what we Christians call sanctification. Progressivism presumes that the world, society and individuals can and should get better overtime and getting better means that the assumed dignity of creation in general and humans in particular can be actualized through political and economic reform.
This progress towards the dignity of all humans leads to greater economic security and opportunity and greater political and cultural inclusion of individuals and communities of people.
The equality of persons under the law is generally a progressive principle.
Pragmatic and adaptable policy making for the purpose of achieving these aims.
Individuals originate from communities and communities that value individuals thrive.
A mixed flexible economy of private and pubic investment, open markets with increasing worker rights and ownership works better for more people than centralized economies and laissez-fair capitalism. Progressives would say that property is best left to individuals but there needs to be some amount of collective ownership of property that serves the interest of all people. (as a Christian I believe in stewardship which means that God owns all property and we possess property in trust sometimes as individuals, sometimes as businesses and other organizations, sometimes as small communities, sometimes as states and nation.)
So I would say that progressivism is not purely statism. It is in fact only partly about matters of state. It is in many ways about the empowerment of indiviudals so that they are equipped to take care of themselves and their families without the ongoing intervention of the state.
Hope this is helpful. Again, this is my own understanding; I do not speak for all progressives.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
You mean your a Santorum supporter!
I could see him saying some of the same stuff in your comment.
Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed
I'm confused...
"Progressivism presumes that the world, society and individuals can and should get better overtime and getting better means that the assumed dignity of creation in general and humans in particular can be actualized through political and economic reform.
This progress towards the dignity of all humans leads to greater economic security and opportunity and greater political and cultural inclusion of individuals and communities of people."
...So you believe in progress toward a better world. And? Everyone of every ideological persuasion believes in progress toward a better world; the question is how you define "better world" and, once you've set that as your goal, what are the best methods for attaining it.
"The equality of persons under the law is generally a progressive principle"
What does "equality under the law" mean to you? For example, if one person is forced to pay $100 tax and another person is forced to pay only $50 tax, is that equality under the law? What if the reason for the disparity is race? What if the reason for the disparity is age? What if the reason for the disparity is gender? What if the reason for the disparity is income? Does it matter what the reason is, or does it only matter that there is in fact a disparity, such that the two persons are not subject to the same law?
"Pragmatic and adaptable policy making for the purpose of achieving these aims."
...which means?
"Individuals originate from communities and communities that value individuals thrive."
...I don't mean to be rude, but your post is heavy on empty cliches and light on substance.
"A mixed flexible economy of private and pubic investment...property is best left to individuals but there needs to be some amount of collective ownership of property that serves the interest of all people"
...If some public ownership is good, wouldn't pure public ownership (socialism) be even better? How much public ownership is good? Why? In what sectors of the economy? Why? Is there any non-arbitrary reason to say this instance of public ownership is good and that one is bad? If you don't know why a certain kind and amount of public ownership in the economy would be good, then in fact you don't know that it would be good.
Render
Render unto Caesar what is Caesars...
The PROVIDENTIAL state of affairs is that this Republic has no Caesar.
Therefore, nothing is Caesar's, it is ALL the Lord's.
My #1 sticking point with Leftist philosophy is that Government is replacing God in their platform.
IMO, progressivism is 180 out from biblical teachings.
It is not the job of government to do what the church was commanded to do.
And if government was restrained to its constitutional bounds, the church (and grange and communities) would do wonders with their neighbors.
Progressivism is a is a secularized version of what we Christian
This is a good definition. I'd tweak it a little and say that progressivism is the institutionalization of Christian charity. Christopher Lasch and Ivan Illich are probably the best critics of this idea. Essentially, once charity becomes institutionalized it is no longer charity. Sanctification cannot occur by proxy. The Samaritan bleeding the ditch requires a personal response. Charity can only be personal. I cannot achieve sanctification by paying taxes to an agency that I hope will do the Lord's work. To pursue Christian goals via the state is to believe that love can be underwritten by power. The perfect love exhibited by Christ was revealed in weakness and fragility, willing to suffer violence but never wield it. The man who told his followers to never sign contracts was only interested in personal, voluntary relationships. Agents of the state nailed him to the cross, not a band of outlaws. There's probably a lesson there.
Santification is personal
but you are wrongly assuming that sanctification is merely individual. Sanctification in the New Testament is both personal and communal.
However, as a progressive I do not think that the government should be about the business of charity unless you consider education and infrastructure jobs to be charity.
There seems to be a widespread assumption that all that progressives want is more welfare, dole without toil. I for one am opposed to welfare (giving money with no expectations of accountability) whether corporate or individual.
I'm with you on the non violence of Christ. I guess that i don't consider adherence to laws I disagree with to be matters of violence against me. While Christ does not wield violence (at least not this side of the eschaton) he does not hesitate to wield power. Witness his actions in cleansing the temple and casting out demons. he did not wait for voluntary ascent before using power in those instances.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
The first thing I notice is
The first thing I notice is that you seized on overtime pay. Perhaps the workers should stage a revolt.
Workers of the world, unite!
/sarcasm
________________________________________
Add the product of his/her labor to #1
If you produce something (e.g., mixing your labor in with clay to make a sculpture, taking care of a plant and picking its fruit, etc.) than it is your property as well.
Currently consuming: Free Domain Radio; Virtue of Selfishness; Human action;
Yes
...but I was counting that as homesteading: i.e. I only gain ownership over a thing with which I've mixed my labor if that thing was previously unowned. A tree in the virgin wilderness which I make into a boat counts, your lawnmower which I make into a go-cart and ride off doesn't. : )
Nonsense
Winning the nomination was the primary goal of this campaign, but it was not the only goal. We will not succeed in winning the nomination, that will be confirmed at the end of August, but we are succeeding brilliantly both in spreading the message and (most importantly) in beginning to take over of the GOP.
The GOP convention in Tampa at the end of August will mark the end of phase one (or two, considering '08) of our r3volution, not the end of the r3volution altogether. We won't have the Presidency in 2012, but we will become an important faction within the GOP (we already are, and that fact is slowly dawning on the establishment); we will control several State parties by the end of August; we will run liberty candidates at every level and win. We'll keep growing, and soon enough we will control the GOP...maybe in time for 2016, when Obama's 2nd term has ended and it's time for the GOP to pick a new nominee. ; )
Buck up friends, nothing is over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib43Lfdivdw
So are you
not amenable to a coalition strategy with progressives in 2016? Do you not think that Ron Paul would have done better had he left the delegate strategy to his operatives, led perhaps by his son while he formed an independent or third party coalition ticket with a Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. He would at least be in the general election this fall and in the debates for sure because a coalition ticket would not get less than 20% in the polls and probably after the debates break 30% or even 355 in the general election.
I think the bottom line here is libertarians (an unfortunately most progressives as well) don't want to govern unless they can have 100% control over all policy and staff.
Can you admit that a coalition administration in 2013 will advance libertarian principles and policies faster than waiting for a glorious winner take all victory in 2016?
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Constructive Dialog
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but I want to chime
to congratulate the people participating on this thread for the quality of discussion.
My experience with progressives convinces me that most are not authoritarian by nature. We really are kindred in so many ways. I would welcome any progressive at the table, rather than a neocon. Even more so now that we are beginning to understand each other more.
Thank you, Progressive4Paul, for instigation this pow wow.
Thanks LibBerte
It's what I have been aiming for all along. Perhaps some of the unconstructive stuff I bear responsibility for because of my negative assessment of the campaign. (Hence the many negatives.)
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
i'm glad to read of your experience, but mine
has been that most Progressives will defend their ideology no matter what facts they are confronted with. When the truth overwhelms their defenses, they retreat into silence, but do not abandon their quasi-religious faith in proven disastrous policies. Often the irrational desire for "redistribution" of wealth is more important to them than any consideration of morality, ethics, reality.
That is why we see so many prepared to vote for Obama again. Both ends of the spectrum Right & Left seem to be team players first, not seekers of virtue and truth. I know there have begun to be cracks, and I still work to widen them; but damn it's slow going trying to open minds seemingly made of hardened cement and devoid of ethical references other than the emotional pandering they bought into for so many years.
Root Systems
LOL .... You are right on. I should clarify that have found most progressives, on a personal level, can embrace 'live and let live'. But, you are right, they don't 'get it' when it comes to wielding power -- as if government's function is anything other than that when macro policy is to be imposed to further their happy, helpful agendas. The 'do gooder' in them is convinced good intentions is itself a systematic solution. At the risk of making some collectivist generalizations myself, they seem inclined to entertain non invasive approaches when dealing with individuals (even those with whom they disagree) when face to face, one on one. But they certainly share a taste for righteousness and thoughtless faith in big government systems with their kindred self satisfied neocons of the right.
I know you to be a member of our team who doesn't shy from the thankless task of attempting to plant seeds in the few thin cracks in the pavement. You know what happens as the roots sink in. ...
I'm root'n for your progress.
;-)
What are you smoking bud?
There is no way civil war won't occur soon, lol this won't drag on till 2024. When people have lost everything, and have nothing to lose, they'll lose it, It's getting worse and worse, people want to know what the f--- happened, even the ones who are blind eventually wake up because it will affect their lives directly, and they will take things into their hands.
I saw a protester at an occupy movement rally with a sign "EAT THE RICH", that may be a bit intense to display, but guarantee it's hitting chords in the people's psyche, it's a reality that may not be far off from happening...
RIP?
Poor, poor, poor socialists. Let us hold a pity party for their defeatism.
Libertarian Logic is growing. Why? Because it is being proven correct time after time.
2012 is not the be-all, end-all for Liberty.
And let us not confuse ourselves with talk about 'civil liberties' and Liberty itself.
Civil liberties are allowances given to the populace by a strong arm government.
Liberty is freedom FROM said government.
Freedom, the idea, is growing.
Progressivism is dying.
One can not get much more Progressive than we have witnessed in the republic since 1913.
The only thing remaining is a totalitarian state.
Lovers of Liberty shall remain and continue in 2013.
I pray the opposite holds true for Progressives.
Central planning has given us DHS, JPMorgan, Greece, Portugal, et al.
Only a true, free market can save us. And that is anathema to the Progressive.
This is exhibit A
of what I mean by sectarian libertarianism. Let's be real. Progressives make up about 25% of the electorate. Real libertarians make up about the same. The only way to victory is through political alliance. Triumphalist fantasies on either side are a sure path to defeat.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Alliance?
Alliances brought us WW1 and WW2 (with shenanegans from the elite).
To propose a marriage of sorts between people that want to be Free and people that want to be cared for, cradle to grave, by government is a Lose-Lose proposition, is it not?
No matter which side gets to call the shots, 1/2 of the folks would be upset at the direction of the alliance.
I can only speak for myself, but if you and the disillusioned Left would like to be Free, we will welcome you with open arms.
The ONLY way for the Libertarian Movement to end would be to pull a Tea Party, and shackle itself to people that are not on the same page politically.
Why hook up with progressives, when the neo-cons from both parties are the end result of Progressivism?
Why buy the cow, when the milk is free?
Again, the Freedom movement is growing. Folks are seeing that Big Government is the problem, ans not the solution.
Come aboard the Freedom Train if you would like... but do not believe for one second that the Freedom Train is looking for a new set of tracks.
Correct
"The ONLY way for the Libertarian Movement to end would be to pull a Tea Party, and shackle itself to people that are not on the same page politically."
...If progressives want to vote for Paul, or any other libertarian candidate because they agree with *some* of the platform, then I welcome you with open arms. But if progressives want us to compromise our principles, then I say don't let the door hit you on your way out.
As Ron Paul has always said, we should attempt to build coalitions, meaning that we should ally with progressives in advancing issue we have in common. But that is entirely different from compromising and putting up some mutant libertarian-progressive platform.
Is there any policy
advocated by me on my blog which you would deem as "mutant."
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Hold on....
...I didn't call progressive policies "mutant," I called a platform which mashes together contradictory libertarian and progressive policies mutant. We should not (and will not) compromise principles. We should and will (I hope) have a chance to cooperate on issues we have in common: like foreign affairs, civil liberties, crony capitalism, etc.