A leftist progressive's paradise

[MrWonka]

Common sense is what is practical, not just what has always been done.

There is nothing practical about anything that people like Joe Arpario believe. Ungodly amounts of money wasted in a futile attempt to keep immigrants out of the country despite living in a country founded by immigrants. Judging people based on Race or Sex may seem practical to some, but it is absolutely idiotic in reality.

 

[MrWonka]

What opportunities do whites have that blacks lack?

And what law says that everyone is entitled to an upper middle class life?

What people are entitled to is a reasonable opportunity to make a decent life, not necessarily the life itself. You do have to work for it, and take advantage of opportunities, but if you seriously think the average minority in this country has any where even close to the same opportunities as a white christian male, then your ****ing delusional and I'm not going to waste my time on you.

 

[MrWonka]

1. Yes, and the prevailing science, Aristotle/Ptolemy/Copernicus' was what made them think these things.

Prevailing science only arises from someone thinking outside of the box in the first place. Aristotle, Ptolemny, and Copernicus were also attacked by those who claimed their ideas went against "Common Sense." Galileo was tortured until he recanted his ideas that went against "common sense."

https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/machiavelli-on-change-and-innovation/

And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only the lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the fear of adversaries who have the laws on their side and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until they have seen it proved by the event.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Have you seen the great wall of China? Do you ignore evidence of it's existence too?



Your personal anecdotal experience is completely irrelevant when judging a larger trend, even if it wasn't clearly framed by your own racism.

...or your complete lack of grasping reality, and trying to say I am a racist, when you are the one that made that ridiculous post claiming black people are lesser beings than white people so they can ONLY...

be rappers
be drug dealers
or be basketball stars

to escape their plight.

NEWS FLASH....there is no "plight". Only personal decisions people make in their personal lives that get them where they are.

No one believes your rhetoric anymore. It is am old play from a very old playbook.

The victim mentality strikes again.

 

[Lutherf]

Save for the weapons, Sheriff also described the US Military. I guess this means you have something against all those free loaders in Army Greens?

Not exactly. In the military you still need to perform your duties and adhere to the rules. You also need to volunteer for the service. In LiberalTopia you just have all that stuff crammed down your throat whether you ask for it or not.

 

[Lutherf]

When you actually learn what progressivism and democratic socialism actually are - instead of posting what you personally think they are - please come back and let us know.

Hmm -

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure. Such policies require the support of a majoritarian coalition of trade unionists, people of color, feminists, gays and lesbians and all other peoples committed to democratic change. Our greatest contribution as American socialists to global social justice is to build that coalition, which is key to transforming the power relations of global capitalism.

Democratic community. Democratic socialists recognize that for individuals to flourish, a society must be grounded in the moral values and institutions of a democratic community that provides quality education and job training, social services, and meaningful work for all. Leaving the provision of such common needs to the private marketplace guarantees a starkly inegalitarian class system of access to opportunity.

A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic,responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action. But while a democratic state can protect individuals from domination by inordinately powerful, undemocratic transnational corporations, people develop the social bonds that render life meaningful only through cooperative, voluntary relationships. Promoting such bonds is the responsibility of socialists and the government alike.

As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

If socialism cannot be achieved primarily from above, through a democratic government that owns,control and regulates the major corporations, then it must emerge from below, through a democratic transformation of the institutions of civil society, particularly those in the economic sphere -- in other words, a program for economic democracy.

Social Redistribution. Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require:

1. massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs,income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and
2. a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.

Where We Stand - Democratic Socialists of America

Nah, nothing Utopian in that:roll:

 

[MrWonka]

when you are the one that made that ridiculous post claiming black people are lesser beings than white people so they can ONLY...

be rappers
be drug dealers
or be basketball stars

to escape their plight.

It would be racist if I said they were only capable of it. What I actually said is that they feel as though it's their only options, because privileged white racists around them make it virtually impossible for them to follow any other path. They absolutely have the talent and abilities to do everything else. It's people like yourself that struggle with understanding that.


But my apologies I forgot we were just supposed to pretend racism doesn't exist at all any more because RetiredNsmilin doesn't think it does. People like you have been claiming racism is in the past for decades despite the obvious reality that it is not. You're continued denial only demonstrates your massive delusion.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

It would be racist if I said they were only capable of it. What I actually said is that they feel as though it's their only options, because privileged white racists around them make it virtually impossible for them to follow any other path. They absolutely have the talent and abilities to do everything else. It's people like yourself that struggle with understanding that.


But my apologies I forgot we were just supposed to pretend racism doesn't exist at all any more because RetiredNsmilin doesn't think it does. People like you have been claiming racism is in the past for decades despite the obvious reality that it is not. You're continued denial only demonstrates your massive delusion.

..and where exactly did you earn your Psychiatry degree?

you know it is unethical to hand out free analyses over internet posts.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Hmm -







Where We Stand - Democratic Socialists of America

Nah, nothing Utopian in that:roll:

Yeah, you cherry-picked ONE organization with a membership size of less than ten thousand people, and went with the frankly wild assumption that we all believe as they do. In other words, you committed the classic broad-brush logical fallacy.

Try again.

 

[Lutherf]

Yeah, you cherry-picked ONE organization with a membership size of less than ten thousand people, and went with the frankly wild assumption that we all believe as they do. In other words, you committed the classic broad-brush logical fallacy.

Try again.

So DSA aren't really Democratic Socialists? How about just giving us a percentage? What percent of their platform coincides with the "real" Democratic Socialist platform?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So DSA aren't really Democratic Socialists? How about just giving us a percentage? What percent of their platform coincides with the "real" Democratic Socialist platform?

Here's a good description of how hard the term is to describe, from The Hill:

What is a “democratic socialist”? Is it a politician who believes media, business and utility conglomerates should be nationalized, or is it a leader who takes the approach of sharing wealth in a manner which allows citizens to enjoy the rewards of a civilized and developed nation?

These are interesting questions that need to be answered with this historical presidential election fully underway. Bernie Sanders (I), the U.S. senator from Vermont, has billed himself as a democratic socialist while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. His opponents, however, have labeled him a communist and even a Soviet sympathizer, while others claim he isn’t a socialist at all.

Professor Frances Fox Piven, the honorary chairperson of the official Democratic Socialists of America coalition, says Sanders does not quite meet the definition of the term, preferring to call him a New Deal Democrat – a reference to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ambitious set of social programs after the Great Depression and during the Second World War. Piven did admit, however, that “people mean a lot of different things by (democratic socialism).” Famed activist and linguist Noam Chomsky also has said Sanders is not a socialist of any sort, calling him “a decent, honest New Dealer.”
Splitting hairs over terminology might seem like an academic exercise with little or no value, and it largely is, but since Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and many Americans do not fully understand what he means by that statement, it is worth investigating the term — and more importantly, figuring out what he means by it.

In 2006, Sanders himself defined what he meant by the term. He stated: “… I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly.’’

All of that is pretty tame stuff compared to what many Americans might imagine when they hear the word socialism.

It is sometimes just as useful to define a thing by what it isn’t as by what it is. The Sanders brand of democratic socialism is not Latin American-style socialism where businesses and utilities are seized and nationalized. It is also not Chinese or Soviet-style communism where much of the economy is centrally controlled and the rights of individuals are trampled under the heavy boot of government. To see the difference between communism and social democracy, we need look no further than one of the major theorists and architects of the Russian revolution, Leon Trotsky, who was such a vehement opponent of social democrats in Western Europe that he blamed them for saving capitalism and preventing communist revolutions in places like Germany and France.

To equate democratic socialism or social democracy with revolutionary communism is therefore both definitionally and historically inaccurate. The closest models are ones Sanders regularly cites — countries such as Canada, Denmark, England, and Germany.

Whether political scholars and activists think Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat or a New Deal Democrat is ultimately immaterial. What matters is that we understand his policy record and positions, since no one country he names is a perfect model for what his vision for America is, and no single definition of any of the terms that might correctly apply to him sum up the entirety of his political views.

 

[katzgar]

I’ll look forward to your rational debunking of the truth of the Sheriff’s observation.




Define “better access.” We claim to be a free country, what more access is needed?




Actually Sheriff Joe said it, not I. I simply am amused at the irony and truth of his statement.

there is no truth in his statement, just more right wing lunacy.

 

[Lutherf]

Here's a good description of how hard the term is to describe, from The Hill:

What is a “democratic socialist”? Is it a politician who believes media, business and utility conglomerates should be nationalized, or is it a leader who takes the approach of sharing wealth in a manner which allows citizens to enjoy the rewards of a civilized and developed nation?

These are interesting questions that need to be answered with this historical presidential election fully underway. Bernie Sanders (I), the U.S. senator from Vermont, has billed himself as a democratic socialist while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. His opponents, however, have labeled him a communist and even a Soviet sympathizer, while others claim he isn’t a socialist at all.

Professor Frances Fox Piven, the honorary chairperson of the official Democratic Socialists of America coalition, says Sanders does not quite meet the definition of the term, preferring to call him a New Deal Democrat – a reference to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ambitious set of social programs after the Great Depression and during the Second World War. Piven did admit, however, that “people mean a lot of different things by (democratic socialism).” Famed activist and linguist Noam Chomsky also has said Sanders is not a socialist of any sort, calling him “a decent, honest New Dealer.”
Splitting hairs over terminology might seem like an academic exercise with little or no value, and it largely is, but since Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and many Americans do not fully understand what he means by that statement, it is worth investigating the term — and more importantly, figuring out what he means by it.

In 2006, Sanders himself defined what he meant by the term. He stated: “… I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly.’’

All of that is pretty tame stuff compared to what many Americans might imagine when they hear the word socialism.

It is sometimes just as useful to define a thing by what it isn’t as by what it is. The Sanders brand of democratic socialism is not Latin American-style socialism where businesses and utilities are seized and nationalized. It is also not Chinese or Soviet-style communism where much of the economy is centrally controlled and the rights of individuals are trampled under the heavy boot of government. To see the difference between communism and social democracy, we need look no further than one of the major theorists and architects of the Russian revolution, Leon Trotsky, who was such a vehement opponent of social democrats in Western Europe that he blamed them for saving capitalism and preventing communist revolutions in places like Germany and France.

To equate democratic socialism or social democracy with revolutionary communism is therefore both definitionally and historically inaccurate. The closest models are ones Sanders regularly cites — countries such as Canada, Denmark, England, and Germany.

Whether political scholars and activists think Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat or a New Deal Democrat is ultimately immaterial. What matters is that we understand his policy record and positions, since no one country he names is a perfect model for what his vision for America is, and no single definition of any of the terms that might correctly apply to him sum up the entirety of his political views.

That's a nice C&P but it's not really an answer. How much of the DSA platform do you think coincides with today's Social Democrats?

As an aside, citing Frances Piven isn't exactly reassuring. She's one who proposed intentionally crashing the economy to achieve economic parity.

 

[BitterPill]

and, who are these "leftist progressives" who think everything should be free?

Is believing that we, like the rest of the world, could spend half as much as we do on health care and have a better system than we do now tantamount to expecting health care to be free?

Is the thought that we might actually come out ahead by subsidizing post secondary education, like we already do secondary education, expecting everything to be free?

I've looked and looked, and still can't find any of those leftist progressives who believe in making the country one huge commune where everything is free.

Prison is freedom!

Reminds me of the doublespeak of 1984.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

There is nothing practical about anything that people like Joe Arpario believe. Ungodly amounts of money wasted in a futile attempt to keep immigrants out of the country despite living in a country founded by immigrants. Judging people based on Race or Sex may seem practical to some, but it is absolutely idiotic in reality.

I think as a country based on the rule of law that we can and do, and should continue to make laws regarding who can and who cannot come into our country.

Legal immigration is fine, illegal from wherever one comes from is not. We do not have to be a stupid and naive country, based on what you propose, just to make all you overly sensitive types feel okay with all your overblown guilt feelings.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Prevailing science only arises from someone thinking outside of the box in the first place. Aristotle, Ptolemny, and Copernicus were also attacked by those who claimed their ideas went against "Common Sense." Galileo was tortured until he recanted his ideas that went against "common sense."

https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/machiavelli-on-change-and-innovation/

Little ironic that you would use the words of wisdom written over 450 years ago to inform me that we need to look for change...

Aristotle, Ptolemy and Copernicus were wrong on the universe... so how were the claims against them being common sense in any way wrong?

 

[Fenton]

Here's a good description of how hard the term is to describe, from The Hill:

What is a “democratic socialist”? Is it a politician who believes media, business and utility conglomerates should be nationalized, or is it a leader who takes the approach of sharing wealth in a manner which allows citizens to enjoy the rewards of a civilized and developed nation?

These are interesting questions that need to be answered with this historical presidential election fully underway. Bernie Sanders (I), the U.S. senator from Vermont, has billed himself as a democratic socialist while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. His opponents, however, have labeled him a communist and even a Soviet sympathizer, while others claim he isn’t a socialist at all.

Professor Frances Fox Piven, the honorary chairperson of the official Democratic Socialists of America coalition, says Sanders does not quite meet the definition of the term, preferring to call him a New Deal Democrat – a reference to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ambitious set of social programs after the Great Depression and during the Second World War. Piven did admit, however, that “people mean a lot of different things by (democratic socialism).” Famed activist and linguist Noam Chomsky also has said Sanders is not a socialist of any sort, calling him “a decent, honest New Dealer.”
Splitting hairs over terminology might seem like an academic exercise with little or no value, and it largely is, but since Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and many Americans do not fully understand what he means by that statement, it is worth investigating the term — and more importantly, figuring out what he means by it.

In 2006, Sanders himself defined what he meant by the term. He stated: “… I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality child care, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly.’’

All of that is pretty tame stuff compared to what many Americans might imagine when they hear the word socialism.

It is sometimes just as useful to define a thing by what it isn’t as by what it is. The Sanders brand of democratic socialism is not Latin American-style socialism where businesses and utilities are seized and nationalized. It is also not Chinese or Soviet-style communism where much of the economy is centrally controlled and the rights of individuals are trampled under the heavy boot of government. To see the difference between communism and social democracy, we need look no further than one of the major theorists and architects of the Russian revolution, Leon Trotsky, who was such a vehement opponent of social democrats in Western Europe that he blamed them for saving capitalism and preventing communist revolutions in places like Germany and France.

To equate democratic socialism or social democracy with revolutionary communism is therefore both definitionally

Nothing tame about that definition of Socialism.

Nationalizing our Healthcare industry isn't a tame initiative whatsoever.

For one, Americans, if they're smart want no part of having the same Government that was responsible for allowing Veterans to languish on hidden waiting list until they died running their Healthcare

They know that there's no accountability under a Single payer system and no matter how bad, inefficient or financially unsustainable it becomes the left will continue to push it down their throats

It will be like Obamacare in the sense that those responsible for its implementation will never admit just how destructive its become

Someone needs to ask Sanders why Single payer failed in his home State

And destroy our environment?

Sanders honeymooned in the same Country that was responsible for the Aral Sea disaster, that was responsible for Chernobyl

Sanders is pushing the same AGW nonsense that winds up increasing energy cost on the poor and the Middle-class

 

[MrWonka]

I think as a country based on the rule of law that we can and do, and should continue to make laws regarding who can and who cannot come into our country.

Laws should be based upon what makes sense. Something does not make sense just because it is a law. Your appeal to the wording of a law is evidence that you cannot provide a rational justification for why it should be written the way it is.

When a law is idiotic you replace it with one that makes sense. Then you can worry about enforcing it. Requiring that we deport 11 million people before we can fix our immigration law makes as much sense as requiring that we round up and arrest everyone who drank a beer under prohibition before we repeal prohibition. No, the law is stupid get rid of the law. Replace it with one that makes sense, and is enforceable and then you can talk to me about rule of law.

Legal immigration is fine,

Then make all immigration legal and the problem is solved right? Poof!!!! Magic!!!! See that's what happens when you base the morality of a thing based on its legality instead of it's legality based upon its morality.

feel okay with all your overblown guilt feelings.

Guilt comes from having a sense of right and wrong. That is why people like me are capable of recognizing that a law is idiotic and wrong, whereas you seem to want to continue enforcing an idiotic law that is irrational and clearly causing more problems than it solves.

 

[imyoda]

Laws should be based upon what makes sense. Something does not make sense just because it is a law. Your appeal to the wording of a law is evidence that you cannot provide a rational justification for why it should be written the way it is.

When a law is idiotic you replace it with one that makes sense. Then you can worry about enforcing it. Requiring that we deport 11 million people before we can fix our immigration law makes as much sense as requiring that we round up and arrest everyone who drank a beer under prohibition before we repeal prohibition. No, the law is stupid get rid of the law. Replace it with one that makes sense, and is enforceable and then you can talk to me about rule of law.


Then make all immigration legal and the problem is solved right? Poof!!!! Magic!!!! See that's what happens when you base the morality of a thing based on its legality instead of it's legality based upon its morality.




Guilt comes from having a sense of right and wrong. That is why people like me are capable of recognizing that a law is idiotic and wrong, whereas you seem to want to continue enforcing an idiotic law that is irrational and clearly causing more problems than it solves.

Has it ever occurred you don't really know what the "rule of law" is? Or what it means? And that is why it may seem silly to you?

Just because you know the meaning of two words does not mean you can understand what they may mean when used together..............Were you aware of that?

 

[countryboy]

I really hope you're not seriously citing Joe Arpaio as a hero of intellectual thought. Good lord.


As an aside though maybe if we did a better job of insuring people had better access to these things outside of prison we wouldn't have to lock so many people up. Essentially what you're saying is that life in prison is better than what many people can hope for living free, so why should they be afraid of being sent to prison? For millions of African American men in this country it seems like drug dealing and other crimes are the only routes to an upper class life outside of basketball or rapping. Maybe if we gave more of them access to the same tools that whites have and stop cutting off ever legitimate route to prosperity we wouldn't have as many problems with crime.

Good grief, what a load of racist nonsense. :doh

 

[Lutherf]

Nothing tame about that definition of Socialism.

Nationalizing our Healthcare industry isn't a tame initiative whatsoever.

For one, Americans, if they're smart want no part of having the same Government that was responsible for allowing Veterans to languish on hidden waiting list until they died running their Healthcare

They know that there's no accountability under a Single payer system and no matter how bad, inefficient or financially unsustainable it becomes the left will continue to push it down their throats

It will be like Obamacare in the sense that those responsible for its implementation will never admit just how destructive its become

Someone needs to ask Sanders why Single payer failed in his home State

And destroy our environment?

Sanders honeymooned in the same Country that was responsible for the Aral Sea disaster, that was responsible for Chernobyl

Sanders is pushing the same AGW nonsense that winds up increasing energy cost on the poor and the Middle-class

Such is the current "Democratic Socialist" mindset. They oppose Capitalism because, to their thinking, it creates monopolies yet they are perfectly willing to hand over all forms of regulation to government which, of course, is a monopoly.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Nothing tame about that definition of Socialism.

Nationalizing our Healthcare industry isn't a tame initiative whatsoever.

For one, Americans, if they're smart want no part of having the same Government that was responsible for allowing Veterans to languish on hidden waiting list until they died running their Healthcare

They know that there's no accountability under a Single payer system and no matter how bad, inefficient or financially unsustainable it becomes the left will continue to push it down their throats

It will be like Obamacare in the sense that those responsible for its implementation will never admit just how destructive its become

Someone needs to ask Sanders why Single payer failed in his home State

And destroy our environment?

Sanders honeymooned in the same Country that was responsible for the Aral Sea disaster, that was responsible for Chernobyl

Sanders is pushing the same AGW nonsense that winds up increasing energy cost on the poor and the Middle-class

Y'know what? I've had single-payer health care ever since I was 18 years old...and so does my wife. It's called "TriCare" - and it's what the active (and many retired like myself) military uses worldwide. It works very well indeed - it's saved my wife's life, my youngest son's life, and it makes my own life a heck of a lot easier.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you'll try to claim that it's not single-payer health care, that it's a "benefit" of our service...but in reality it FUNCTIONS as a good single-payer health care system would.

In other words, just because one single-payer system didn't work well does NOT mean that ALL single-payer systems work poorly...because TriCare has worked very well for my and my family indeed.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That's a nice C&P but it's not really an answer. How much of the DSA platform do you think coincides with today's Social Democrats?

As an aside, citing Frances Piven isn't exactly reassuring. She's one who proposed intentionally crashing the economy to achieve economic parity.

If you read the DSA platform as closely as you seem to believe, and compared it as closely to Sanders' positions as you believe you have, you would have seen that it's pretty obvious that not all definitions of "Democratic Socialism" are the same.

Definitions are important, you know. If we went only by one cherry-picked definition of "Democratic Republic", we might wind up not with our own definition of it, but with the definition of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". In other words, just because you see the word "Socialist" does NOT mean that it's the same thing as what the USSR had...

...or did you not see what Trotsky - one of the founders of the USSR - was quoted as saying in my previous reply?

 

[Diving Mullah]

“A leftist progressive's paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed
employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education,
free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and
only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not,
such a place does indeed already exist: - It's called
Prison". Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Or United States Armed Forces...

funny how things have double meaning!

Diving Mullah

 

[Peter King]

“A leftist progressive's paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed
employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education,
free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and
only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not,
such a place does indeed already exist: - It's called
Prison". Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Joe the nutcase Arpaio?

Anyway, I do not think that is a leftist progressive paradise at all. At least not mine.

I do not believe in "free healthcare" or "free education". Everybody needs to pay into the system, healthcare, education, food, housing, clothing, utilities etc. etc. etc.

There are no free rides IMHO, leftist or not.

And it most certainly is not progressive because progressive just talks about ideals, affordable healthcare, affordable education, fair taxation, good protection of civil liberties, women's rights, right to choose, right to mostly live your life as free as possible without government interference into what your life style is and respect for other people who want to live according to their life choices (as long as they are legal life choices but that is a criminal law issue, not a civil law issue).

At least that is what I see as a leftist progressive nice world (don't need a paradise, I am an atheist) with just a few basic guarantees.

And prison, comrade Joe, is hardly a paradise, leftist or progressive. Especially not your prisons.