Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

ObamaCare =/= freedom

 

[Oddball]

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressivism is fundamentally anti dogmatic? Do you even know how absurd it is to say that? Dogmatism means that you accept a point of view as fundamentally true, kinda of like you you just asserted that progressivism is anti dogmatic. In order for progressivism to be truly anti dogmatic it would have to assert that its own belief system is false. The fact that ipeople have to assume that what they believe is true always leads to them not examining their beliefs sufficiently unless they make a conscious effort to do so. The only belief system I have ever encountered that urges people to challenge their own beliefs all the time is Christianity, and even that system is dogmatic.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

Sounds like dogmatism to me.



That is definitely dogmatic, you are assuming things about others without examining their beliefs because it is inconceivable to you that your progressive beliefs might be wrong.



Of course it does, which is why they all oppose Obamacare.

Wait, they don't.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

That was funny.

Didn't you just point out that progressives are fundamentally opposed to conservatives? How can they adopt beliefs that are against their fundamental nature? Do you even understand that by arguing for regulated markets, you are arguing against free markets?

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

Yet you just rejected a solution out of hand by insisting that markets have to be regulated. Do you not even see how stupid and dogmatic that is?

You're not saying that progressives project their dogmatism and authoritarian proclivities onto people who oppose them, are you?...

 

[Dick Tuck]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it. In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like or achieve great financial success or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality. Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

How is limiting the right wings attempts for institutional hatred hurting the rights of others? How is protecting citizens rights to breath clean air, eat safe food, and consume properly tested medicines abridging the maximum rights of individuals. To the contrary, it makes us more free.

 

[Peach]

You're not saying that progressives project their dogmatism and authoritarian proclivities onto people who oppose them, are you?...
__________________
Extremists of all kinds do.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You're not saying that progressives project their dogmatism and authoritarian proclivities onto people who oppose them, are you?...

Where's the little red book of progressive thought? The ability to question status quo, on balance, and looking toward the greater good for society in general, is far from being dogmatic. It requires thought and logic. Unlike conservatives, who George Will once claimed as defining themselves as what their against.

Nope, it's the right wing lemmings who want some extreme, and not liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it. In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like or achieve great financial success or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality. Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

How is limiting the right wings attempts for institutional hatred hurting the rights of others? How is protecting citizens rights to breath clean air, eat safe food, and consume properly tested medicines abridging the maximum rights of individuals. To the contrary, it makes us more free.

So long as whatever you describe as 'institutional hatred' is not violating the unalienable rights of anybody else, it is eveybody's unalienable right to 'hate' whomever they wish. When you presume to dictate what anybody is and what is not allowed based on something as vague as 'hate', you are limiting freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it.

Incorrect. Liberals seek to neither limit nor balance capitalism, or anything else, for that matter. As long as a capitalist entity functions in a legal manner, it’s free to decide its course of action in the pursuit of profits. If a capitalist entity should violate the law, however, by polluting the water, mistreating its employees, or endangering the safety of its customers, then that capitalist entity will be subject to the appropriate sanctions, as authorized by Congress and the Constitution.

In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat…

Nonsense. Modern American liberalism has been at the forefront of fighting for freedoms of Americans for well over half a century, from ending segregation in the 50’s (Brown v, Board of Education, 1954), to ending discrimination against homosexuals during this century (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). No jurisdiction has prohibited smoking or eating (?), and jurisdictions have the regulatory authority to ensure food consumed by its citizens is safe.

…what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like…

Cite any statue that forbids you from liking a certain thing, saying anything, or thinking anything, that exceeds the appropriate restrictions as proscribed by Constitutional case law.

Remember that no right is absolute.

You might like child pornography, but that’s not protected free expression; you may say to your friends ‘let’s meet in ten minutes at the corner to kill the first black person we see,’ but that’s not protected free speech.

And as for ‘express[ing] our religious faith wherever we like,’ again, cite any statute that prohibits you form doing so. You may not, however, attempt to codify your religious dogma into secular law, which must then be obeyed by everyone of every faith, including those free from faith.

When a court correctly strikes down such a law that violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it is in no way interfering with religious expression, as the codification of religious dogma is not a mandatory tenet of any faith. All religious expression can be manifested without the benefit of government endorsement.

…or achieve great financial success…

And yet again, cite any statute that prohibits one from doing so. One is free to seek ‘finical success’ provided it is done in accordance with the law, one has never been allowed to profit from a criminal enterprise.

…or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality.

Not if those ‘values’ are sanctioned by government authority to establish a segregated community discriminating based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. One is free to be a hateful, ignorant bigot on his own private property, but all jurisdictions are subject to the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all citizens enjoy equal access to all laws and the right to due process.

Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, which seems typical for conservatives, a political philosophy predicated on ignorance.

Inalienable rights are not ‘extended’ to anyone, by anyone. Inalienable rights manifest as a component of the human condition, they are not given by any government or constitution, and may not be taken by either as well.

The evidence is clear and undeniable: conservatives have historically fought to separate Americans from their inalienable rights.

In Texas conservatives fought to retain discriminatory laws against Hispanic Americans (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954); in Florida conservatives fought to deny an indigent defendant his 6th Amendment right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), and in Virginia conservatives fought to deny an interracial couple their fundamental right to marry (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

Today the conservative tradition of denying Americans’ their civil rights continues, in efforts to deny women their right to privacy, to restrict Americans’ fundamental right to vote, and to deny homosexuals equal access to the law.

In essence, your post is nothing more than ignorant conservative whining, predicated on a rightist contrivance and myth as to what you incorrectly perceive ‘liberalism’ to be, devoid of fact or evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it.

Incorrect. Liberals seek to neither limit nor balance capitalism, or anything else, for that matter. As long as a capitalist entity functions in a legal manner, it’s free to decide its course of action in the pursuit of profits. If a capitalist entity should violate the law, however, by polluting the water, mistreating its employees, or endangering the safety of its customers, then that capitalist entity will be subject to the appropriate sanctions, as authorized by Congress and the Constitution.

In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat…

Nonsense. Modern American liberalism has been at the forefront of fighting for freedoms of Americans for well over half a century, from ending segregation in the 50’s (Brown v, Board of Education, 1954), to ending discrimination against homosexuals during this century (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). No jurisdiction has prohibited smoking or eating (?), and jurisdictions have the regulatory authority to ensure food consumed by its citizens is safe.



Cite any statue that forbids you from liking a certain thing, saying anything, or thinking anything, that exceeds the appropriate restrictions as proscribed by Constitutional case law.

Remember that no right is absolute.

You might like child pornography, but that’s not protected free expression; you may say to your friends ‘let’s meet in ten minutes at the corner to kill the first black person we see,’ but that’s not protected free speech.

And as for ‘express[ing] our religious faith wherever we like,’ again, cite any statute that prohibits you form doing so. You may not, however, attempt to codify your religious dogma into secular law, which must then be obeyed by everyone of every faith, including those free from faith.

When a court correctly strikes down such a law that violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it is in no way interfering with religious expression, as the codification of religious dogma is not a mandatory tenet of any faith. All religious expression can be manifested without the benefit of government endorsement.



And yet again, cite any statute that prohibits one from doing so. One is free to seek ‘finical success’ provided it is done in accordance with the law, one has never been allowed to profit from a criminal enterprise.

…or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality.

Not if those ‘values’ are sanctioned by government authority to establish a segregated community discriminating based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. One is free to be a hateful, ignorant bigot on his own private property, but all jurisdictions are subject to the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all citizens enjoy equal access to all laws and the right to due process.

Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, which seems typical for conservatives, a political philosophy predicated on ignorance.

Inalienable rights are not ‘extended’ to anyone, by anyone. Inalienable rights manifest as a component of the human condition, they are not given by any government or constitution, and may not be taken by either as well.

The evidence is clear and undeniable: conservatives have historically fought to separate Americans from their inalienable rights.

In Texas conservatives fought to retain discriminatory laws against Hispanic Americans (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954); in Florida conservatives fought to deny an indigent defendant his 6th Amendment right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), and in Virginia conservatives fought to deny an interracial couple their fundamental right to marry (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

Today the conservative tradition of denying Americans’ their civil rights continues, in efforts to deny women their right to privacy, to restrict Americans’ fundamental right to vote, and to deny homosexuals equal access to the law.

In essence, your post is nothing more than ignorant conservative whining, predicated on a rightist contrivance and myth as to what you incorrectly perceive ‘liberalism’ to be, devoid of fact or evidence.

You are correct that unalienable rights are what the Founders described as God given and their intent was for the government to recognize and protect them.

What civil rights or what other kinds of rights do you think conservatives are denying anybody? You'll have to be a lot more specific about that to have any credibility at all. There is absolutely zero chance of you finding any instance in which denial of unalienable rights has been advocated by anybody as a conservative principle. That would be the absolute antithesis of modern American conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism.

You can find all kinds of anecdotal evidence to use as a straw man, whether you are liberal or conservative, so that won't fly with me. I don't even want to look up the cases you cite because they are irrelevent to the concept I am arguing here.

On the other hand I was addressing a point your fellow progressive was making that some capitalists, if they don't meet the moral expectations of the progressive, should be denied their right to exercise their capitalism. So who gets to decide what is and is not immoral in such cases? Why the progressive of course.

Freedom includes the right to embrace anything that does not violate the unalienable rights of another. It also includes the right to disagree and to form the the kind of society that people wish to have. It does not have the right to deny others the right to form the kind of society they wish to have which might be very different.

Conservatism does not allow a federal government to dictate what those societies must be.

 

[dilloduck]

Think bigger.

The enemy of We the People is not JUST big government. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the forces that create an aristocracy.


Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington
16 Jan. 1787Papers 11:48--49

The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments.

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretense of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

True. Communication, Transparency, Accountability, a defense against Tyranny, the Division between Wolves and Sheep, when left to Our Lower Nature. We All have the Civic Responsibility to be informed and Involved. Government, Monopoly, Conglomerates, left to their own device, will serve Their Interests, not ours. That is a primary reason why things should not be Centralized or Nationalized, just because. You would do better supporting Small Enterprise.

The monpoly on media destroys our defenses.

 

[Erand7899]

Is there "a free market system"? yes and no. It depends on what you are referring to. As to certain
natural resources like oil, for example, oligopoly prevails. The oil producers dictate the prices.

Oil producers can only dictate prices when they have the ability to control the supply of oil and alternative energy sources. OPEC attempts to control supply, but they can easily be countered by a marginal supply that is not under the control of OPEC. Consequently, the need in the United States for drill, baby, drill. We do not need a large enough internal supply to eliminate OPEC oil, just enough to prevent OPEC from controlling production.

I would like to see the United States (and other oil consuming nations) establish a large oil reserve designed to control the price of oil. This reserve could be set up with a one time investment, and then operate on its own resources. This reserve would begin to sell oil anytime the price rose above a designated point, and would begin to buy oil anytime the price fell below that point. That would also rein in speculators, while keeping OPEC honest.

 

[Intense]

The concept of "a free market system" is a fallacy - most of the time. How about small entrrpreneurs
joining their forces and uniting?

Like playing with other peoples values, properties, free will, without their consent? The Free Market is not a fallacy as long as one has free will. You go on feeding those that want to own you, it's your choice as far as you are concerned. We Each have a choice.

 

[Intense]

The concept of "a free market system" is a fallacy - most of the time. How about small entrrpreneurs
joining their forces and uniting?

As a small entrepreneur myself, I can assure you that free market concepts are alive and well and work as well now as they ever did.

Same here. Value for Value. Live within your means.

 

[Intense]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

Liberal Dictionary:
================================
Social Justice - injustice.

You don't need to put any qualifiers before he word "justice." A given act is either just or it's not. The qualifier can only mean that without it the act referred to would be unjust.

From another perspective, when State Action is Arbitrary, it is without Foundation, a Foul. The Antithesis of Justice. Abomination. One mistake States have made since the beginning of time, is to have the arrogance to believe they are the final word and authority. Time heals all wounds.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there "a free market system"? yes and no. It depends on what you are referring to. As to certain
natural resources like oil, for example, oligopoly prevails. The oil producers dictate the prices.

In a free market system, what the market will bear at the maximum profit to the producers dictates the prices. Make the price too high and consumers will not buy resulting in loss of profit. Make the price too low and no amount of sales will produce a profit.

 

[Erand7899]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it. In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like or achieve great financial success or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality. Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

How is limiting the right wings attempts for institutional hatred hurting the rights of others? How is protecting citizens rights to breath clean air, eat safe food, and consume properly tested medicines abridging the maximum rights of individuals. To the contrary, it makes us more free.

Most of us like clean air and clean water, safe foods and medicines, and reject institutional hatred. But, like all good things, excess in pursuit of them can be as damaging as the ills which we wish to control. Progressives never seem to understand that concept.

For instance, the EPA has the power to completely override private property rights. They can declare any property a wetland, and control the use of that property. The owner has the right to pay taxes on the property, but cannot use it for any purpose that is not approved by the EPA. They write the regulations, they enforce the regulations, and they are the judge of violations of the regulations. BTW, if one wishes to contest their ability to take your property rights, one will be facing fines of thousands of dollars a day while they do so.

 

[Intense]

Is historical evolution a meaningless flux of change? It depends. There are many kinds
of evolution, such as biological, etc. The fallacy is to isolate one single factor as the
sole determinant of change.

Sorry Man, The Progressive Statist has thrown All Variations under the bus, either you accept that 2+2+5 for as long as the Leadership says it does, or you are designated road kill, thrown under the bus. To the Progressive Statist, it is more important that you go along, than you have a valid perspective contrary to the Platform. Leave your Conscience at the door.The Dominant factor is will you submit, will you go along at any price. There are no other options.

 

[Intense]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

Statist Progressivism is about Control, Censorship, and Indoctrination.

 

[Intense]

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it. In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like or achieve great financial success or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality. Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.

How is limiting the right wings attempts for institutional hatred hurting the rights of others? How is protecting citizens rights to breath clean air, eat safe food, and consume properly tested medicines abridging the maximum rights of individuals. To the contrary, it makes us more free.

Most of us like clean air and clean water, safe foods and medicines, and reject institutional hatred. But, like all good things, excess in pursuit of them can be as damaging as the ills which we wish to control. Progressives never seem to understand that concept.

For instance, the EPA has the power to completely override private property rights. They can declare any property a wetland, and control the use of that property. The owner has the right to pay taxes on the property, but cannot use it for any purpose that is not approved by the EPA. They write the regulations, they enforce the regulations, and they are the judge of violations of the regulations. BTW, if one wishes to contest their ability to take your property rights, one will be facing fines of thousands of dollars a day while they do so.

The EPA not even distinguishing between Business and Personal Use of Private Property, seems a problem too. Very contradictory practices for a Constitutional Republic rooted in Federalist Principle. The consent of the governed, due process, the respect of the Individual as an equal being, afforded the same protection and respect, as any mob. When you abandon principle, no matter the excuse, you still are predatory. The end does not automatically justify the means. Hamilton was lying to himself, as much as to the rest of us.

 

[Londoner]

If you looked at a medical text from the 1800's, you would discover that woman are biologically prone to hysteria and thereby unfit for the rational demands of civic life - and must thereby be excluded from holding public office or even voting. You would also discover that "blacks" have thicker skulls and are taxonomically closer to animals than full humans, and should rightfully be the property of actual humans (white anglo saxon european men). Fortunately, most things in the universe evolve - including knowledge - and the laws which affect the rights of women and blacks evolved too. Of course, there will always be a segment of the population who don't want laws to change with the times. Nixon's Silent Majority didn't like the feminist bra burners because they felt the traditional gender roles of the original America were being destroyed. They saw "The Pill" as contradicting God's plan for sexuality and women, which was the reproductive one inside the traditional nuclear family, ruled by the man, whose authority was ordained by God. Fortunately, women won that battle for freedom. Fortunately, laws changed with the times. People who lived 200 years ago should not be able to decide how the free individuals of today should live.

Thank god we don't have to live inside the dead hand of the past. When Copernicus tried to challenge the Geocentric model of the Ptolemic system (which reinforced the Biblical garbage about how the universe rotated around the earth), there was amazing resistance. People don't like it when traditions change. They will destroy even science to preserve tradition. They will imprison scientists. The church tried to stop medical progress when doctors first started to open-up and analyze cadavers. They use the same arguments today RE stem cell research. The Right is always halting progress and destroying freedom because of their radical moral vision. They hide behind lofty notions of "Originalism" without pausing to unpack the hermeneutic problem of interpreting what someone meant 200 years ago. Worse: the Robert's court is one of the most activists in history. They gave human rights to corporations when no such rights were stipulated by the founders. But let's face it: the world has changed since the Founders - and when it changes, so do laws and interpretations of laws. The Founders could not have known about the kinds of corporations that exist today (AIG is larger than the Edinburgh of Adam Smith's youth). They didn't know about computers or a billion other complicated structures which necessitate the drafting or changing of laws. There is nothing more enslaving than placing a text written eons ago above human freedom and human change. But the right has a history of strangling the freedoms of individuals with the dead hand of the past. See the Bible. They always try to destroy progress and freedom unless that progress and freedom benefits the wealthy interests which own their party. This is how power works.

When Reagan ignored the Sherman Act and destroyed anti-trust protections and thus initiated the era of too-big-to-fail mega-mergers, he allowed for the formation of mega-corporations that were large enough to sink not just the American economy, but the global economy. There is no bigger friend of socialism - because, to protect the economy, these mega-monsters have de-facto bailout insurance from the taxpayer. The people who complain loudest about socialism have created not only a unitary market system which imposes centralized control on all regions (so capital has unobstructed access to labor and raw material across to all borders and cultures), but have created a system where the costs and risks of the wealthy are subsidized by the public. It's a hoax. "Have thy feast and be done with it lad!" Stop bullshitting us about Socialism. The point of of the market seems to be to get enough private capital to manipulate elections and lobby Washington for access to the taxpayer's wallet. Big Business and Big Government are one - and they exist to extract money from people who cannot afford to fund elections and staff government. The Fed isn't run by a bunch of professed socialists like Ayn Rand would have us believe; it's run by the pinnacle of private wealth - Goldman Sachs.

The old power of Stalin and FDR has been replaced by the new concentrated power ... which is concentrated wealth. You need to update the tired Chicago School critique, which was responding to a time before private sector wealth owned every president and congressman. The Government is run by tyrannical brownshirts who are trying to save the world. it is run by the money of private corporations in the interests of their shareholders.

 

[Intense]

If you looked at a medical text from the 1800's, you would discover that woman are biologically prone to hysteria and thereby unfit for the rational demands of civic life - and must thereby be excluded from holding public office or even voting. You would also discover that "blacks" have thicker skulls and are taxonomically closer to animals than humans, and thereby should rightfully be the property of actual humans. Fortunately, most things in the universe evolve - including knowledge - and the laws which affect the rights of women and blacks evolved too. Of course, there will always be a segment of the population who don't want laws to change with the times. Nixon's Silent Majority didn't like the feminist bra burners because they felt the traditional gender roles of the original America were being destroyed. They saw "The Pill" as contradicting God's plan for sexuality and women, which was the reproductive one inside the traditional nuclear family, ruled by the man, whose authority was ordained by God. Fortunately, women won that battle for freedom. Fortunately, laws changed with the times. People who lived 200 years ago should not be able to decide how the free individuals of today should live.

Thank god we don't have to live inside the dead hand of the past. When Copernicus tried to challenge the Geocentric model of the Ptolemic system (which reinforced the Biblical garbage about how the universe rotated around the earth), there was amazing resistance. People don't like it when traditions change. They will destroy even science to preserve tradition. They will imprison scientists. The church tried to stop medical progress when doctors first started to open-up and analyze cadavers. They used the same arguments we hear to day over stem cell research. The Right is always halting progress and destroying freedom because of their radical moral vision. They hide behind lofty notions of "Originalism" without pausing to unpack the hermeneutic problem of interpreting what someone meant 200 years ago. Worse: the Robert's court is one of the most activists in history. They gave human rights to corporations when no such rights were stipulated by the founders. But let's face it: the world has changed since the Founders - and when it changes, so do laws and interpretations of laws. The Founders could not have known about the kinds of corporations that exist today (AIG is larger than the Edinburgh of Adam Smith's youth). They didn't know about computers or a billion other complicated structures which necessitate the drafting or changing of laws. There is nothing more enslaving than placing a text written eons ago above human freedom and human change. But the right has a history of strangling the freedoms of individuals with the dead hand of the past. See the Bible. They always try to destroy progress and freedom unless that progress and freedom benefits the wealthy interests which own their party. This is how power works.

When Reagan ignored the Sherman Act and destroyed anti-trust protections and thus initiated the era of too-big-to-fail mega-mergers, he allowed for the formation of mega-corporations that were large enough to sink not just the American economy, but the global economy. There is no bigger friend of socialism - because, to protect the economy, these mega-monsters have de-facto bailout insurance from the taxpayer. The people who complain loudest about socialism have created not only a unitary market system which imposes centralized control on all regions (so capital has unobstructed access across all borders and cultures), but have created a system where the costs and risks of the wealthy are subsidized by the public. It's a hoax.

Every elaborate scheme to take control of other peoples Voice, Liberty, Property, without their consent is a hoax. Why do you need centralized control? Imperialism, disguised as Socialism, Totalitarian Rule, afraid of criticism? Why the need to control the very thoughts in our heads? You should worry more about liberating the thoughts in your own head. You can start by going to the Men's Room without asking permission first. Question Indoctrination wherever you find it. At least look for qualification, when things are imposed on you. The problem lies in the realization that the mechanism created to serve a purpose no longer does that. The reason for the mechanism is to serve It's purpose for being, not take it over. Not redefine it without consent. Modernization is not even a part of the equation. The means to adapt is built into the system. You derail, by misusing Authority, and then claim it is broken. News flash, Those entrusted to maintain the system have hi-jacked it and derailed it. You are a Moral Relativist. 2+2=5 for as long as it is useful to you. Clarity of purpose, exposes the scam, the corruption of principle, which is timeless. True Despots, can misuse and abuse those they are sworn to protect and defend, this is a part of Human Nature. That is why We Enumerated the Powers of Government in the first place. You want one World Government? Centralized and Absolute in Authority. News Flash, One Size does not fit All. When an Idea, Discovery, Invention, Principle, is worthy of Merit, it stands on it's own. By consent it is adopted by masses. No need to shove it down anyone's throat.