- Thread starter
- #541
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.
Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.
The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.
In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a mixed economyessentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.
Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.
As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.
The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.
Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.
The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.
In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a mixed economyessentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.
Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.
As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.
Still, Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Unique Perspective. Try not pissing all over those that are not in agreement with yours.
You are imagining and projecting. Check your premise. No wait, reason does have no place in your accusation or argument. Never mind.
At least you admit to Government Corruption. So do I. The difference between us, is that I don't subscribe to giving the Government Total control over my life, as being the fix to Government corruption. Here is an idea, let's try Enumerated Powers, and Government by the consent of the Governed for a change, as opposed to people like you trying to impose your tainted views of up and down, on the rest of us. I get why you would be afraid of people making up their own minds, coming to their own conclusions, on matters of importance. There is no such thing as a Totalitarian Utopia on Earth. Get a grip, already.
Waste not, want not. So what virtue do you want to punish next? There is no control worthy without both defined purpose and limitation. Whatever you embrace with the fuel of other peoples money, without consent and due process, is theft. No matter how many co-conspirators you recruit. We are not arguing about justifiable, supported controls, based in reality, but those that breach the trust. You act like you can just decree with impunity, like you are above account. Both Nature and Man, see through the hypocrisy of your position.
Maybe in your dreams. You need a reality check. Again, playing with other peoples lives and money. Maybe, just maybe, providence is something you need to pray on. It is for Government to establish and maintain a fair playing field, not to determine the outcome of the game, or introduce rules arbitrarily without foundation. Progressives need to reestablish the Defense of Justice for each Individual, and stop with the collateral damage in the name of expediency and what is convenient, for you. No Structure is of more value , worth, or importance, than it's purpose for being, in the first place.
As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.
Or Progressives, tampering with original intent, built a Welfare State Structure, putting it's own ranks, above the people, it claimed to serve, insuring that whatever befalls us, because of mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption, would be best insulated and the last to feel the bite. You had no Constitutional Authority or Consent to do that. Let me know when the realization sinks in.
Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan
SO typical of the right wing mind. Thank you for proving that the right uses ZERO human capital in their solutions. It is survival of the richest, social Darwinism. And the right wing Monica Lewinsky's for the opulent just continue to parrot the agenda of their handlers.
So the ONLY entity we need to fear is government. And, if mean old government would just get out of the way, polluters would stop polluting, Wall Street would stop swindling and we can restore the proper order in this world; the beloved and virtuous elite and the lowly and lazy surfs.
THAT is what America WAS. IT was called the Gilded Era. The BI-partisan progressive movement confronted and changed America from an oligarchy to a democracy. We certainly can't have any of that shit in opulent America.
THIS is who and what you are... accept it, embrace it. Just don't expect someone like me who does not worship the opulent to get down on my knees.
Could you be more full of shit??? Nah.... Good try though, keep trying to inject your warped view into the conversation. You are so sure of what you think I represent. It is funny. Still, there you go championing Totalitarian control. Who knew. Who do you think was behind this bullshit from the start? Idiot.