• 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!

Switching from Progressive to Libertarian-Left

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.

Someone who wants freestuff is progressive. Someone who wants REAL progress is typically anything but a "progressive". Progressives need their reality compass calibrated in the worst sort of way because they're about 180 degrees off more often than not.
 
Corporations' purpose is not to work for you or me. A government's purpose is that reason.

The basic idea of a corporation is like minded people coming together that have cooperated in shared property. Few corporations are limited to that these days.
 
Thrilla said:
to be more accurate, it would be a socialistic attitude.

socialism and libertarianism are compatible... but it's mostly academic/philosophical compatibility... real world integration is incredible hard to pull off( primarily due to the authoritative tendencies that arise in implementing policy)
Yes, when the cooperation is mutual among those involved, it is a corporate idea. When it is imposed by law, it is not longer the liberty of the individuals to,participate, but opposite of libertarianism. It is authoritarianism.

Socialism is not to be included in libertarian ideas, and still called libertarian in my opinion.
Thrilla said:
many Socialists are actually left Libertarians, but find themselves vacating basic tenants of libertarians in order to implement policy.

to be fair, this is also a problem that right libertarians have.
I disagree. The force of law under libertarianism is to protects one persons freedoms from another violating it. Not force people to share what they don't want to share.
 
why do firms lobby?... to try to win back monies that were confiscated by policies.
With a 22,000 percent return? :roll: That's getting back $220.00 for every dollar that you have invested. I don't know too many people--I hang out with at least--that gets that kind of return on their investments, so I doubt it :shrug:
 
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 can put a frog in a jar, and then put a label on the jar that says "WATER BUFFALO".


Even if I made the label so big that you can't actually see the frog at all in the jar.... it is still a frog, not a water buffalo.





My point being labels are merely labels. They are often not very accurate descriptors.

For instance, the "Patriot Act".... had a lot to do with real patriotism didn't it? :roll:
 
Poeple lossing faith in governance is dangerous, politicians need to learn you can't go on much longer with the current state of affairs.
 
With a 22,000 percent return? :roll: That's getting back $220.00 for every dollar that you have invested. I don't know too many people--I hang out with at least--that gets that kind of return on their investments, so I doubt it :shrug:

The article was an interesting spin, but the 22,000 percent return wasn't an honest evaluation of anything. The "analysis" took a look at what companies spent lobbying and then calculated tax savings for repatriated profits that were taxed at a lower rate due to tax benefits from "The benefits of the American Jobs Creation Act". What makes this such a dishonest "study" is that it makes a connection between whatever corporations spent on lobbying overall to tax benefits from this act. These companies and these industries always spend a lot of money lobbying because the government regulates them and they SHOULD have eyes, ears and a mouthpiece in Washington to represent them. But how much of the lobbying efforts were directed toward the "Jobs Creation Act" as opposed to all the other things going on? And what proof is there that lobbying from these companies was actually responsible for the creation AND PASSING of the Jobs Creation act. which passed with bipartisan support?

The assertion that corporations get a 22,000 percent return on their lobbying is dishonest to the point of being asinine.

I think people should do some research on the Job Creation Act before giving any credibility to this article.
 
Last edited:
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.
I would be libertarian-right if it wasn't for their kooky stances on drugs, isolationism, and faulty logic behind their position on abortion. Can we please have "general asshole" as a political lean? Because I just can't take any party seriously anymore and just want to poke at them.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to trust the government to be a liberal or progressive, in fact, the opposite is true. Instead you support the idea that a democratic* process with protection for the rights of all is the best approach to governing. The government is be trusted only to the extent that it lives up to that ideal. The other part of the equation is recognizing that in many situations, government is needed to protect the freedom and well being of the people from the worst acts of others. An excessively weak government can not stop others from coercing, stealing and cheating us and destroying the environment. Government needs to reflect the will of the people, act justly, and have enough power to keep foreign governments, individuals, gangs and corporations from taking more than their share and harming others.

*and/or representational democracy
 
You don't have to trust the government to be a liberal or progressive, in fact, the opposite is true. Instead you support the idea that a democratic* process with protection for the rights of all is the best approach to governing. The government is be trusted only to the extent that it lives up to that ideal. The other part of the equation is recognizing that in many situations, government is needed to protect the freedom and well being of the people from the worst acts of others. An excessively weak government can not stop others from coercing, stealing and cheating us and destroying the environment. Government needs to reflect the will of the people, act justly, and have enough power to keep foreign governments, individuals, gangs and corporations from taking more than their share and harming others.

*and/or representational democracy

well you will not get that from democracy in any way, democracy breeds faction/ special interest, it is that, that is destroying america.
 
You wouldn't make a good progressive unless you have a poster of FDR on your wall and want the government to play master market manipulator.

I'm glad you made the switch.

Liberty: +1
Statism: -1

Of course back in FDR's day Progressives were Republicans who wanted more social change than the retrenched big business 'Conservatives'.

I guess in today's hyper partisan world they would be RINOs or tepid Democrats.

Rather than letting a few incredibly greedy men manipulate the market until it crashes and leaving the mess for the taxpayer, in one way or another, to pay for the mess. Progressives would like enough oversight to keep speculators from rocking the boat enough to capsize it, they are going to game the system, but let's not kill the goose because you have yours, to hell with everyone else. :peace
 
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.
I can respect anyone who fears governments AND corporations alike.

I prefer democratic governments to be more powerful than corporations because democratic governments are more accountable to the people. But when democratic governments get conquered by corporations and become their puppets, Left Libertarianism as you describe it can hardly be called all that irrational, if at all.
 
You wouldn't make a good progressive unless you have a poster of FDR on your wall and want the government to play master market manipulator.
FDR? Dude, please. I've got Teddy Roosevelt's poster on my wall. He's the ORIGINAL progressive.
 
The article was an interesting spin, but the 22,000 percent return wasn't an honest evaluation of anything. The "analysis" took a look at what companies spent lobbying and then calculated tax savings for repatriated profits that were taxed at a lower rate due to tax benefits from "The benefits of the American Jobs Creation Act". What makes this such a dishonest "study" is that it makes a connection between whatever corporations spent on lobbying overall to tax benefits from this act. These companies and these industries always spend a lot of money lobbying because the government regulates them and they SHOULD have eyes, ears and a mouthpiece in Washington to represent them. But how much of the lobbying efforts were directed toward the "Jobs Creation Act" as opposed to all the other things going on? And what proof is there that lobbying from these companies was actually responsible for the creation AND PASSING of the Jobs Creation act. which passed with bipartisan support?

The assertion that corporations get a 22,000 percent return on their lobbying is dishonest to the point of being asinine.

I think people should do some research on the Job Creation Act before giving any credibility to this article.
If it ain't the Jobs Creation Act than it's some other trick the rich (and yes, that puts the politicians, both Republican and Democrat, in that category too.) uses to save money on taxes. The fact remains that they made at least $220.00 on every dollar invested--and I could care less what you throw in to the mulligan stew to come up with as to why. :shrug:
 
I should add that IMO the progressive/liberal position is that you don't trust the government, you make it a good government by remaining informed, vigilant and involved.
 
How can a communistic attitude be libertarian as well?

Communism in and of itself is not supposed to require a state

But socialism does

Depending on who you ask
 
FDR? Dude, please. I've got Teddy Roosevelt's poster on my wall. He's the ORIGINAL progressive.

I hope you're kidding

They both suck massively
 
Except economic power, right?

They would point out that the way to ensure that power is checked in the economic sphere is to ensure that no economic power is able to leverage the power of government to give it advantage ;)
 
I wonder if people actually know that the historic aspect of the word "libertarian" was actually coined and used by a French individual to describe a communistic ideology? Just throwing that out there..
 
They would point out that the way to ensure that power is checked in the economic sphere is to ensure that no economic power is able to leverage the power of government to give it advantage ;)

So how do you get those currently having a blast doing so to stop?

Frankly, I don't believe it anyway. Money is power, power corrupts.

You'd have to get enough people in govt to change govt, and I don't see how that happens.
 
So how do you get those currently having a blast doing so to stop?

As long as you legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are legislators. If you wish to cease the leveraging of government for the , benefit of select economic interests then you have to take away the governments' ability to legislate buying and selling. Businesses only do what's in their best interest - but when the Return on Investment for political activity is higher than the RoI for new investment in American workers, why would they create jobs for anything except lobbyists.

You'd have to get enough people in govt to change govt, and I don't see how that happens.

That. Or you wait for the system to implode. :) Which it will soon enough.
 
I wonder if people actually know that the historic aspect of the word "libertarian" was actually coined and used by a French individual to describe a communistic ideology? Just throwing that out there..

Yup. And "liberal" used to mean someone who supported small government and free trade.
 
Back
Top Bottom