How is that different from libertarianism?
How is that different from libertarianism?
I consider myself a Progressive. I wish I could use the term without being associated with cultural Marxism.
Libertarians are not nationalists.
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.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.
One would think. But, "progressive" has been co-opted for marketing purposes much in the same way "conservative" has.Shouldn't a Progressive be trying to get to the middle where most people want the country to be?
is that kind of fascist progressivism ?: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.
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.
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.Isn't that what every philosophy is dedicated to?
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.
No, but it is a philosophy dedicated to the improvement of the human condition.
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.
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.
Why? Is socialism something special everyone should progress towards?
It is not when taken to the extreme. At some point socialism becomes the thing we should progress away from.
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.
Shouldn't a Progressive be trying to get to the middle where most people want the country to be?
Absolutely, but the key point is that they are still trying to use the State to improve society.
...also hold that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?