What is a Progressive?

[Edward Twinkletoes]

What is a progressive? a traveler

On the highway to hell.

 

[chrisrobin]

On the highway to hell.

I agree. For average folks, the 20th century has been a living hell.

Those lousy progressives were responsible for:

the 40 hour work week
time and a half after 40 hours
holidays, sick days and vacation days
Title Nine, giving women an equal footing in interscholastic athletics on every level
OSHA - protection for the worker in the workplace

Oh, the humanity!

I could name more but I'm short on time. By the way, our conservative brethren have turned "liberal" into a pejorative - as someone who has sexual relations with his mother.

In a similar manner distinguished American hero, the junior senator from Wisconsin, Joseph P. McCarthy, coined the expression "democrat" party instead of "democratic" because the former ends in "rat" - generally holding a negative connotation.

Charming.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree. For average folks, the 20th century has been a living hell.

Those lousy progressives were responsible for:

the 40 hour work week
time and a half after 40 hours
holidays, sick days and vacation days
Title Nine, giving women an equal footing in interscholastic athletics on every level
OSHA - protection for the worker in the workplace

Title Nine was a clusterfuck that shut down male sports teams all over the country.

OSHA has proven intrusive and a joke even to many employees its there to [STRIKE]mess with[/STRIKE] protect.

 

[altlover85]

Uh no. You just don't understand the use of the terms.

One can be a liberal republican. They ARE liberal in terms of conservative ideology. In terms of the full spectrum, though, they're moderates.

Right, I was talking about the full spectrum. I might be considered a moderate democrat, but I'm not a moderate.

Anyone fighting for human rights should be republican.

I see where you are coming from, but currently if you are for equality, which helps people get civil rights then you don't vote Republican.

Title Nine was a clusterfuck that shut down male sports teams all over the country.

OSHA has proven intrusive and a joke even to many employees its there to [STRIKE]mess with[/STRIKE] protect.

Can you provide some sources for that? Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

I see where you are coming from, but currently if you are for equality, which helps people get civil rights then you don't vote Republican.

Yes, well, anyone fighting for human rights should also be a Democrat.

That's what happens when you go by negatives: underlying Democratic philosophy says don't vote there! if you want human rights, but overt Republican behavior says the same.

Of course the solution is find a party without those failings. The only one I'm aware of is the Libertarians.

Can you provide some sources for that? Thanks.

The first has been addressed in past issues of US News, Time magazine, and the ISI journal -- I don't know volume #s.

The second is both personal experience and from talking with all sorts of people -- employees of a variety of businesses from grocery stores to painters to electronics to roofing. When I was at a place that made surveillance equipment, we got a visit from OSHA, and our work conditions became so miserable we were muttering about it over drinks at a bar -- and people right and left came up with their own horror stories.

 

[Kulindahr]

^The trouble, Kulindahr, is that the Libertarians don't seem to care whether or not your employer harms you. (No regulations and what not)

Ultimately, they're right in that. The problem is that they're blind to a very important principle: for a society based on liberty, 98% of the people have to be sufficiently devoted to liberty that when the situation would benefit, they will place the interest of liberty ahead of their own.

In such a society, discrimination by employers would not be a problem: if Glen Bigot decided to hire no gays or people with dark skin, people who valued their relationships with those people would boycott him almost without thinking about it -- and that from both ends; suppliers would cut him off because such discrimination is not conducive to liberty, and what isn't conducive to liberty isn't conducive to business.

 

[altlover85]

Ultimately, they're right in that. The problem is that they're blind to a very important principle: for a society based on liberty, 98% of the people have to be sufficiently devoted to liberty that when the situation would benefit, they will place the interest of liberty ahead of their own.

In such a society, discrimination by employers would not be a problem: if Glen Bigot decided to hire no gays or people with dark skin, people who valued their relationships with those people would boycott him almost without thinking about it -- and that from both ends; suppliers would cut him off because such discrimination is not conducive to liberty, and what isn't conducive to liberty isn't conducive to business.

People aren't there yet though. If people and society were where you would like them to be, we probably wouldn't be fighting for our rights currently.

 

[Kulindahr]

People aren't there yet though. If people and society were where you would like them to be, we probably wouldn't be fighting for our rights currently.

And unfortunately, the Democrats are leading people in a wrong direction while the Republicans don't get it.

 

[altlover85]

And unfortunately, the Democrats are leading people in a wrong direction while the Republicans don't get it.

The idea of things going in the wrong direction is subjective, IMO.

 

[Kulindahr]

The idea of things going in the wrong direction is subjective, IMO.

Dependency on the state is not conducive to taking the initiative on anything. A public that is accustomed to letting others have the initiative is not conducive to liberty.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

The idea of things going in the wrong direction is subjective, IMO.

You've got to be kidding with this. This is exactly why the Democrats took such a hit. They think you can be a dictator in a Democracy just because you think what you want to do is the right thing to do. No. If the people don't like what you've done, they're gonna boot your ass out. And when they do, they're telling you "You're going in the wrong direction".

The Democrats could have easily kept their majority if they just hadn't been so pigheaded and arrogant.

 

[bankside]

Dependency on the state is not conducive to taking the initiative on anything. A public that is accustomed to letting others have the initiative is not conducive to liberty.

Of course in a democratic country where the state is the people, that whole line of thinking doesn't apply.

The state is a tool to deliver on people's common needs. Taking the initiative - together - is necessary to security, prosperity, justice and liberty. A public that is accustomed to struggling in isolation is not conducive to liberty.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course in a democratic country where the state is the people, that whole line of thinking doesn't apply.

And kings were appointed by God, too.

You're buying into the myth of the age, and it's just as false now as it was then. Here's one basic difference: the people are the ones who work hard and create wealth; the state is the outfit that takes wealth at gunpoint and does things with it.

The state is a tool to deliver on people's common needs. Taking the initiative - together - is necessary to security, prosperity, justice and liberty. A public that is accustomed to struggling in isolation is not conducive to liberty.

So I "need" to get rid of judges who voted for human rights (Iowa)?
I "need" a bigot whose supporter stomped on someone's head (Rand Paul)?

The state is a tool, all right, but it's a tool that uses people, and thus is the object of fighting that divides and polarizes. It doesn't make people take the initiative together, it makes them go for each other's throats -- when they do anything at all, which mostly they don't because the state today teaches people they don't have to; the state is there to do it for them.

Throw out the la-la land apologetics for a theoretical beast, and look at reality. On the bottom level, the only people really taking any initiative at all are either the entrepreneurs or the criminals.

 

[altlover85]

The state is a tool, all right, but it's a tool that uses people, and thus is the object of fighting that divides and polarizes. It doesn't make people take the initiative together, it makes them go for each other's throats -- when they do anything at all, which mostly they don't because the state today teaches people they don't have to; the state is there to do it for them.

Throw out the la-la land apologetics for a theoretical beast, and look at reality. On the bottom level, the only people really taking any initiative at all are either the entrepreneurs or the criminals.

I think if we didn't have the state, there would be more violence and more crime. The liberty you talk about would be squelched by those who want power, which is similar to what you think is happening now anyway.

 

[fasteddy]

A progressive is someone who has appointed himself to take care of his lazy neighbors problems and poverty with your money.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think if we didn't have the state, there would be more violence and more crime. The liberty you talk about would be squelched by those who want power, which is similar to what you think is happening now anyway.

We were closer to not needing a state back when George Washington pointed out to Americans what they knew back then: the state is force, nothing but; it needs to be chained and leashed. Along with others, he recognized that it's a necessary evil, but admonished us to never forget that it is, in fact, a dangerous thing built on force, consisting of force.

 

[Kulindahr]

<chuckle> I know how Kulindahr is going to answer this question.

Hint: two bodyguards

No, two bodyguards is what you need if you follow what Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, et al want.

 

[Kulindahr]

The poor-people-are-lazy myth is actually far older than you.

It was widely leveled by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Likely most of them actually work harder than you and make far less because not enough people care to pay them what it takes to support a family in this country. A minimum wage job can no longer afford housing anywhere in the country and hasn't for five years, but you know what for a lot of people among the people who can even find jobs in this day and age that's all there is. Some day you will find yourself in a situation where you need the programs you criticize so that you do not fall into a worse situation in which you will have to depend on others even more and it will be a humbling experience.

Commentary and food for thought: the average Social Security check is less than minimum-wage equivalent. And for many of those people, over a third goes for housing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah, Kulindahr, you blew it.

The correct answer about the two bodyguards is "Smith & Wesson".

Sorry -- I don't think I've ever owned one. Ruger, Colt, Browning, Eagle, Springfield... no S&W.

 

[altlover85]

We were closer to not needing a state back when George Washington pointed out to Americans what they knew back then: the state is force, nothing but; it needs to be chained and leashed. Along with others, he recognized that it's a necessary evil, but admonished us to never forget that it is, in fact, a dangerous thing built on force, consisting of force.

So we were closer to not needing a state back when we barely had one?

I know the state could be dangerous, but so could not having a state. It's people that are dangerous. They just use have the ability to use the state as a weapon if they want.