Who in their right minds is against progress. I do not trust corporations to do the right thing for me or you. Gov't is there for that reason. Make sure you vote for the right people. George Bush was not that.
You can't equate progressive with progress, because they are not synonyms. That would be like me starting a cult called "the reasonablists", then accuse everyone who opposed me of being against reason.
Personally I don't feel like giving the government a blank check to manipulate, tax, and control every sector of our economy they choose.
Progress is a noun. Progressive is an adverb.
Submit is a noun. Submissive is an adverb. Someone who submits is submissive. Some who wants progress is progressive.
I am certainly open to any further reading on the subject if anyone has suggestions.
How is it different?There seem to be some distinct differences between the Libertarian Party and Left Libertarianism, particularly in regards to labor, capitalism, and ownership of property.
You can't equate progressive with progress, because they are not synonyms. That would be like me starting a cult called "the reasonablists", then accuse everyone who opposed me of being against reason.
Personally I don't feel like giving the government a blank check to manipulate, tax, and control every sector of our economy they choose.
Wow...Yup, just like you can no longer associate libertarian with liberty since most of them are now republican fascists who got lost on their way to the tea party.
generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.How is it different?
"Libertarian-left" is an oxymoron.
How can a communistic attitude be libertarian as well?generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.
the stark difference is realized when unowned property resources come into play... but as there are really no unowned property or resources anymore, the difference is primarily academic.
generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.
the stark difference is realized when unowned property resources come into play... but as there are really no unowned property or resources anymore, the difference is primarily academic.
I just turned to Independent myself. But concerning the state and big business, I believe you're going to find out that they both make good bed partners. You can't have a messed-up situation without both parties getting involved.I guess the major stumbling block for me lately with regards to progressivism is I have come to distrust governments almost as much as I mistrust large corporations. I am weary of any coalescence of power, whether it is in government or in the business sector.
I have been undergoing quite a bit of transformation with regard to my political views over the past few years. When I first came to this board I didn't know what Libertarian-Left was. I felt Progressive best reflected my ideals. But I have come to believe Left Libertarianism best describes my current political philosophy. I guess the major stumbling block for me lately with regards to progressivism is I have come to distrust governments almost as much as I mistrust large corporations. I am weary of any coalescence of power, whether it is in government or in the business sector.
I am certainly open to any further reading on the subject if anyone has suggestions.
In the recent experience, one litmus test is the reaction to Citizens United v. FEC. While "right libertarians" (and people focused on civil liberties as such, like the ACLU) have celebrated the court decision, "left-libertarians" seem to be so blinded by their paranoia about all things labeled "corporate", they have joined the cacophony of absurd outrage started by the Unthinking Left.
One would think that allowing groups of people - NGOs, unions and corporations - to pool their resources to compete with wealthy individuals and entrenched incumbents would appeal to the collectivist sentiment of "the left" (whatever kind of "left"), even regardless of the obvious freedom-of-speech angle. But oh no! Corporations are e-e-evil, ergo whatever eliminates any kind of hindrance to whatever they do is absolutely horrible, by definition.
How can a communistic attitude be libertarian as well?
while i agree that some folks take their hatred of corporations to absurd and idiotic heights, there is good reason to distrust large authoritative bodies ...especially when they game the system , hold wide influence on policy, and have a history of corrupt behavior, and are not influenced by the electorate due to government favor.
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?