• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Progressive does not mean ultra-socialist or super-liberal

How is that different from libertarianism?

There are differences. I shall name 4.

On the matter of taxation: while libertarians don't see taxation as a good thing, national liberals don't have a problem with taxes. You can tax us as long as we see a return on our investment. That's why national liberals were the first to implement taxes that go specifically to one department. like taxes that go for healthcare or for education or such. At least where I'm at.

On the matter of government intervention in the individuals life: I do think that government intervention in the individuals' life should be greater than just safeguarding his rights and civic liberties. Sure, that is a good idea and a main priority, but also it should provide the means of recovery and advancement. For this purpose there should be programs that provide free public education, universal healthcare, career suggestion programs, etc, all organized and run by the state to which any citizen can have access to.

On the matter of spending: National liberals don't see deficit spending as something horrible. Deficit spending is good as long as it isn't wasteful. Deficit spending in order to fund better education or for the purpose of creating stimulus packages with grants for small businesses is a good idea. Or basically anything that serves the national interest.

The final one is on the matter of state ownership. National liberals don't mind the fact that the state owns/has majority/has some shares in companies that provide utility services or are of national interest (rafineries, mining companies, etc). While private ownership is the key to innovation and prosperity, and capitalism works, the state shouldn't just be into providing state services as traditionally thought of, but also have a stake in the good provision of consumer services.
 
Shouldn't a Progressive be trying to get to the middle where most people want the country to be?
 
I consider myself a Progressive. I wish I could use the term without being associated with cultural Marxism.

hi vik

is that kind of fascist progressivism ?:confused::mrgreen:
 
On the matter of taxation: while libertarians don't see taxation as a good thing, national liberals don't have a problem with taxes. You can tax us as long as we see a return on our investment. That's why national liberals were the first to implement taxes that go specifically to one department. like taxes that go for healthcare or for education or such. At least where I'm at.
I think it would how you define 'good'. I don't think taxes are a good thing, in that I jump up and down and pump my fist in victory at the thought of paying them, but I do recognize them as necessary and as such don't have an issue with paying them (in concept). I think most true libertarians feel the same way. The ones who rail against them the most are what I call the "faux libertarians" who are just using the name to mask their own individual selfishness.


Shouldn't a Progressive be trying to get to the middle where most people want the country to be?
One would think. But, "progressive" has been co-opted for marketing purposes much in the same way "conservative" has.
 
is that kind of fascist progressivism ?:confused::mrgreen:

Yes. Evolution is a difficult process and people will not naturally do what is difficult without something to motivate them. The government needs to be strong to provide that motivation.
 
Yes. Evolution is a difficult process and people will not naturally do what is difficult without something to motivate them. The government needs to be strong to provide that motivation.

l appreciate your originality :2razz:
 
All socialists are progressive but not all progressives are socialists.
 
Why? Is socialism something special everyone should progress towards?

No, but it is a philosophy dedicated to the improvement of the human condition. They are progressive in intent, even though they aren't progressive in result.
 
No, but it is a philosophy dedicated to the improvement of the human condition. They are progressive in intent, even though they aren't progressive in result.

Isn't that what every philosophy is dedicated to?
 
Isn't that what every philosophy is dedicated to?
I don't think that's a primary goal of libertarianism. Insofar as once you establish and enforce individual freedoms, as long as there is little initiation of aggression, fraud, etc, there is no such national goal of improving the human condition. Is there? I thought it was live and let live to some degree.
 
I think it would how you define 'good'. I don't think taxes are a good thing, in that I jump up and down and pump my fist in victory at the thought of paying them, but I do recognize them as necessary and as such don't have an issue with paying them (in concept). I think most true libertarians feel the same way. The ones who rail against them the most are what I call the "faux libertarians" who are just using the name to mask their own individual selfishness.

Well, taxes are the way we pay for civilization. Or something to that effect. Jean Jacques Rousseau said something like that in French, so you know he was right because he spoke it in a fancy language and it was during a time when the French were badasses.

In the context of that quote good was replacing a sentence to the effect of: The government already gets enough money. I don't want to sponsor big government so me having to pay multiple kinds of taxes or big taxes is not in my interest.

I don't see things that way. I don't have a problem with "large taxes" as long as I am getting a return on my investment. I also support departmental taxation.
A theoretical example:
-pay 10% income tax
-pay 3% education tax (goes directly to fund the department of education)
-pay 3% healthcare tax ( same only for healthcare dept)
-pay 3% social security
-pay 2% cultural tax (goes to the dept of culture and arts)
-pay 2% military tax (goes directly to the military)
-pay 4%% Research and development tax.

So EU standards say that the national budget should be around 30% of the GDP of a country. I don't have a problem paying a total of taxes that go between 30-40% of my total income. This whole idea of departmental taxation would work great if we, the people, would get to elect the cabinet members who fill the position of Minister of education, minister of healthcare, etc. So they wouldn't be appointed by the PM or such, but by us, the people. Regardless of whoever the ruling party is or whoever the PM or other cabinet members get voted. They could be from totally different parties, the people who run for office run on a platform and then the people in power better play nice and cooperate or else they get fired.
 
No, but it is a philosophy dedicated to the improvement of the human condition.

It is not when taken to the extreme. At some point socialism becomes the thing we should progress away from.
 
There are differences. I shall name 4.

On the matter of taxation: while libertarians don't see taxation as a good thing, national liberals don't have a problem with taxes. You can tax us as long as we see a return on our investment. That's why national liberals were the first to implement taxes that go specifically to one department. like taxes that go for healthcare or for education or such. At least where I'm at.

On the matter of government intervention in the individuals life: I do think that government intervention in the individuals' life should be greater than just safeguarding his rights and civic liberties. Sure, that is a good idea and a main priority, but also it should provide the means of recovery and advancement. For this purpose there should be programs that provide free public education, universal healthcare, career suggestion programs, etc, all organized and run by the state to which any citizen can have access to.

On the matter of spending: National liberals don't see deficit spending as something horrible. Deficit spending is good as long as it isn't wasteful. Deficit spending in order to fund better education or for the purpose of creating stimulus packages with grants for small businesses is a good idea. Or basically anything that serves the national interest.

The final one is on the matter of state ownership. National liberals don't mind the fact that the state owns/has majority/has some shares in companies that provide utility services or are of national interest (rafineries, mining companies, etc). While private ownership is the key to innovation and prosperity, and capitalism works, the state shouldn't just be into providing state services as traditionally thought of, but also have a stake in the good provision of consumer services.

Good thoughtful answer. Thanks.
 
I didn't put Chris Hedges on there for his ideological stance. I didn't even know what his ideological stance is. I put him there because what he says sounds good.

What EVERYONE says sounds good until you see what their solutions are. We are all experts at figuring out the problem, but some people have crazier solutions then everyone else.
 
I like a lot of the concepts, especially anti-partisan...to the extent that progressivity isn't partisan I suppose.

Not all the points seem ideal, and some seem anti-democrat. I tend to think progressive is more synonymous with "young and inexperienced". No offense, just talking emotionally when I hear the term. Heart in the right place, but too blinded by ignorance and inexperience to be trusted holding the scalpel or the saw, the policy signature or their finger on the nukes. But clarification threads can be good. This one seems kind of good. The clarification on socialism and communism...those always fail miserably.

At least in this one we haven't had anyone claim you're not a REAL progressive (actually I think we did but let me persist in that belief!)
 
Why? Is socialism something special everyone should progress towards?

Depends on your opinion. But progressivism generally means the view that governmental practices ought to adjust as society as a whole evolves, and generally fights for social justice and left leaning causes and they also hold that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition.
 
It is not when taken to the extreme. At some point socialism becomes the thing we should progress away from.

Absolutely, but the key point is that they are still trying to use the State to improve society.
 
I don't think that's a primary goal of libertarianism. Insofar as once you establish and enforce individual freedoms, as long as there is little initiation of aggression, fraud, etc, there is no such national goal of improving the human condition. Is there? I thought it was live and let live to some degree.

I think in some ways it comes down to what you think the goal of humanity is. If you think the goal of humanity is that everyone is free then it would make sense to at least look at libertarianism, but if you are worried about people not having certain things and you believe in a more collectivist ends than perhaps a stronger state is something you would desire. In the end though, it all basically the same thing. It's not so much that one wants to better the condition of people and the other doesn't, but that they are concerned with different things and in many cases see humanity differently.

I'm not entirely sure that answers your question, sorry.
 
Shouldn't a Progressive be trying to get to the middle where most people want the country to be?

I think that, by definition, the progressive is ahead of where people most are going politically. They "evolve" on positions quicker. The progressive wants to use government to move the country towards their vision of a better place. In recent years, the vision of most progressives seems to be the same as liberals, so I don't feel that the difference is significant at this time.

My observation is that the term liberal has been tarnished (in the eyes of real liberals) by the acts and positions of people labeled as liberals by the media and conservatives who turned out to actually be centrists or somewhat conservative- people like LBJ, Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama etc. Progressive is currently usually used to mean to the left of the Democratic establishment in DC, but to the right of socialists or radicals.
 
Last edited:
Progressive means "never happy". They often try to reinvent the wheel and ignore one simple rule - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Change for the sake of change.

It tends to bring out the mouth-breathers in the movement.
 
Absolutely, but the key point is that they are still trying to use the State to improve society.

Doesn't it usually work better when the people decide what they want as improvement? The State is filled with people who just want to get re-elected or keep their job so it's not really the best thing to use.
 
...also hold that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition.

And exactly who doesn't? Why is it with progressives and socialists for that matter that they want to continually say such stupid things like they are for evolution(socialists) or they are for progress(progressives) while no one else is? It's like you guys need to take 101 course on what philosophy actually is.

Btw, I can't be the only one that realizes the similarity between the words progress and evolution.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom