The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Pogo]

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

Well Glenn Beck is essentially a shock-jock as far as I can tell, and he can use the term progressive however he wants. Regardless, progressivism is a real and active political ideology today. Anybody who calls themselves a liberal today is probably actually a progressive, and many people openly identify as progressive. Yes, the examples I cited are dead, but their ideals are expressed by today's "liberals." Obama is a progressive, Pelosi is a progressive, and on and on.

There was split in the liberal Democratic Party near the turn of the century, where some began to follow William Jennings Bryan, and became progressives, and those who still believed in the liberal ideals and stayed supporters of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats. The progressives won the day, of course, and many of the old liberals faded into obscurity or tried their hand in the Republican Party, which didn't really work out that well for them, and faded into obscurity regardless.

If "progressivism" is a real and active ideology, it's strange that no one can describe it.

I'm not convinced it's any more than the demagoguery of, as you said, a shock jock. I don't hear anyone calling themselves "progressive"; I only hear it as a label pinned on by others, which makes it pretty much meaningless.

I'm not even sure why we're on this tangent; if no one can describe it, let's drop it as a nonentity.

 

[Pogo]

"Liberal" at the time of the Founders was defined 'libertarian' which is why it is now called "classical liberalism'. It bore no resemblance of any kind to modern day American liberalism.

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

Neither did classical liberalism exist as a term in the late 18th Century.

Nevertheless, what the Founders espoused as sociopolitical philosophy as libertarianism that is sometimes used interchangeably with classical liberalism as we define the terms now.

Modern day liberals embrace very very little, if any, of that philosophy as the Founders developed the concept, preached it, and practiced it.

As I understand it "libertarian" means something much closer to "anarchist" and I don't think that was what the Founders had in mind. I think as liberals they believed in laissez faire, a minimally invasive government, as a revolutionary new idea to tear away from the daze of feudalism and the power of the aristocracy and the church. No, there's no evidence they called themselves "a bunch of liberals" but clearly their philosophy could never be defined as what "libertarian" means today.

Obviously a government must have some powers of control, but on that I sense libertarians would disagree.

Perhaps it's all relative degrees of liberalism ....

 

[Foxfyre]

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

Neither did classical liberalism exist as a term in the late 18th Century.

Nevertheless, what the Founders espoused as sociopolitical philosophy as libertarianism that is sometimes used interchangeably with classical liberalism as we define the terms now.

Modern day liberals embrace very very little, if any, of that philosophy as the Founders developed the concept, preached it, and practiced it.

As I understand it "libertarian" means something much closer to "anarchist" and I don't think that was what the Founders had in mind. I think as liberals they believed in laissez faire, a minimally invasive government, as a revolutionary new idea to tear away from the daze of feudalism and the power of the aristocracy and the church.

Obviously a government must have some powers of control, but on that I sense libertarians would disagree.

Perhaps it's all relative degrees of liberalism (?)

Well it wouldn't be the first time you got it wrong.

Anarchy has a specific definition - no laws, no rules, no restraints.

Libertarianism has a specific definition - only as much government as necessary to secure our rights and allow the states to function effectively as one nation, free markets, and otherwise unrestricted ability to live as we choose and form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

They are not the same thing.

But some who call themselves libertarian are actually anarchists who oppose any restraints via social contract. And others are more like modern day liberals who reject social contract and want government to create a utopia for them.

The true libertarian wants his/her rights secured and then to be left alone to live his/her life as s/he chooses. The true libertarian allows for whatever social contract accomplishes that and also allows for those who choose to separate from society and live apart.

Freedom implies every manner of choice that does not infringe on somebody elses rights/freedom. And a right is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But social contract is democracy at work. There will be those happy with the outcome of a majority vote and those not so happy, but the majority prevails in social contract. Those who do not have children will still benefit from an educated work force etc., but if they do not wish to subscribe to that, then they should move to a district that does have privatized schools or no schools at all. Same with those who are in the minority who don't want an organized fire district or municiple police force and prefer to provide those services for themselves. They benefit from lower insurance rates etc. in the social contract, but if they really don't want to participate, they need to move to a community that doesn't have those kinds of services.

Freedom is not anarchy. And it cannot exist under authoritarian government. It is the ability for people to live as they wish to live. I should never be able to dictate to you what your choices must be or vice versa. But majority vote is the only way for a social group to decide issues that are not unanimous.

The question then becomes, how many people does it take to legitimize their taking your money for their own benefit? If 10 people get together, and 9 of them decide to take the money of 1 of them would that be theft or the social contract in action?

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

Well Glenn Beck is essentially a shock-jock as far as I can tell, and he can use the term progressive however he wants. Regardless, progressivism is a real and active political ideology today. Anybody who calls themselves a liberal today is probably actually a progressive, and many people openly identify as progressive. Yes, the examples I cited are dead, but their ideals are expressed by today's "liberals." Obama is a progressive, Pelosi is a progressive, and on and on.

There was split in the liberal Democratic Party near the turn of the century, where some began to follow William Jennings Bryan, and became progressives, and those who still believed in the liberal ideals and stayed supporters of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats. The progressives won the day, of course, and many of the old liberals faded into obscurity or tried their hand in the Republican Party, which didn't really work out that well for them, and faded into obscurity regardless.

If "progressivism" is a real and active ideology, it's strange that no one can describe it.

I'm not convinced it's any more than the demagoguery of, as you said, a shock jock. I don't hear anyone calling themselves "progressive"; I only hear it as a label pinned on by others, which makes it pretty much meaningless.

I'm not even sure why we're on this tangent; if no one can describe it, let's drop it as a nonentity.

Who's left? The top 20 US progressives

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

Strange that people who could be considered progressives are using the term progressive, if it's just a tool of Glenn Beck.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

Neither did classical liberalism exist as a term in the late 18th Century.

Nevertheless, what the Founders espoused as sociopolitical philosophy as libertarianism that is sometimes used interchangeably with classical liberalism as we define the terms now.

Modern day liberals embrace very very little, if any, of that philosophy as the Founders developed the concept, preached it, and practiced it.

As I understand it "libertarian" means something much closer to "anarchist" and I don't think that was what the Founders had in mind. I think as liberals they believed in laissez faire, a minimally invasive government, as a revolutionary new idea to tear away from the daze of feudalism and the power of the aristocracy and the church. No, there's no evidence they called themselves "a bunch of liberals" but clearly their philosophy could never be defined as what "libertarian" means today.

Obviously a government must have some powers of control, but on that I sense libertarians would disagree.

Perhaps it's all relative degrees of liberalism ....

Well it's no surprise that in over 200 years the ideology has gone through some changes, but libertarianism and classical liberalism are very close, nonetheless.

 

[kaz]

Perhaps it's all relative degrees of liberalism ....

Absolutely there are. My definition politically is that a libertarian is someone who wants to minimize government to maximize liberty. All true libertarians would agree on some basic principles. The right to life, liberty and property being the most basic. Anyone who believes in taking property from one person by force and giving it to another isn't a libertarian no matter what they tell you. It's in the part about taking property and using it for public use that the differences appear.

On one extreme, many anarchists do call themselves libertarian. Personally, I don't know why they do that, they have the word "anarchist" to cover that.

For the rest, we generally support roads, regulation of limited resources (e.g., land, water), civil and criminal courts, defense, police, those sorts of things.

The other extreme would support things like National Parks and would be open to things like the Sherman anti-trust act. Some also support the war on terror. I'm a more middle libertarian. I'm not an anarchist, but I think the military should not be involved in foreign wars other than for the direct defense of the US. I was totally for wiping out the Taliban and al Qaeda, but I did not want to stay in Afghanistan and build a country. I do not think we should have any permanent overseas military.

One thing many libertarians have with liberals are endless litmus tests. I prefer a more inclusive attitude and encouraging people who want to limit government to think of themselves as one of us and not the major parties.

But again, anyone who supports programs like Social Security and Obamacare that redistribute money and make everyone dependent on government just aren't libertarian. Dependency on government isn't maximizing liberty. And liberals who claim to be "civil libertarians" rarely are. They generally support minor liberties and ignore gaping wounds.

 

[kaz]

The question then becomes, how many people does it take to legitimize their taking your money for their own benefit? If 10 people get together, and 9 of them decide to take the money of 1 of them would that be theft or the social contract in action?

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

I know what you're saying on the carpet. Though I'm sure you'd agree that if you moved into a planned community where that was a rule going in then it would be perfectly fine. If government does it through force then I would agree it's not.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question then becomes, how many people does it take to legitimize their taking your money for their own benefit? If 10 people get together, and 9 of them decide to take the money of 1 of them would that be theft or the social contract in action?

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

Social contract is not dependent on the status of the organization. Social contract is a concept, a means of organizating a society by mutual consent, a way of accomplishing common goals via a common effort.

In many circumstance the dissenting person can be allowed to opt out and neither contribute to or benefit from the project at hand. We see that a lot in rural communities who say want to put in a common sewer system. If most or many vote against it, it won't be done. If a few who are already there don't want to participate, they are grandfathered out rather than violate the original social contract. The new people moving into the area may not be offered the ability to opt out lest more and more septic systems contaminate everybody's drinking water. Just as if you move into a zoned area with an existing homeowner's assocaition, if you want to buy or build there, you are obligated to abide by the rules and regs and pay your dues to that homeowner's assocaition developed via social contract by homeowners who chose that means to protect property values for all. Zoning laws in towns and cities are for the same purpose.

There is no cut and dried way to handle any given issue. But in the process of social contract, a free people with realistic goals almost always manage to work it out.

 

[Pogo]

Neither did classical liberalism exist as a term in the late 18th Century.

Nevertheless, what the Founders espoused as sociopolitical philosophy as libertarianism that is sometimes used interchangeably with classical liberalism as we define the terms now.

Modern day liberals embrace very very little, if any, of that philosophy as the Founders developed the concept, preached it, and practiced it.

As I understand it "libertarian" means something much closer to "anarchist" and I don't think that was what the Founders had in mind. I think as liberals they believed in laissez faire, a minimally invasive government, as a revolutionary new idea to tear away from the daze of feudalism and the power of the aristocracy and the church.

Obviously a government must have some powers of control, but on that I sense libertarians would disagree.

Perhaps it's all relative degrees of liberalism (?)

Well it wouldn't be the first time you got it wrong.

Anarchy has a specific definition - no laws, no rules, no restraints.

Libertarianism has a specific definition - only as much government as necessary to secure our rights and allow the states to function effectively as one nation, free markets, and otherwise unrestricted ability to live as we choose and form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

They are not the same thing.

No, they're sure not. But what you just described above as "libertarianism" is what I'm calling ("classical") liberalism. What you're calling "anarchy" is what is, to my understanding, libertarianism. As you noted in your next paragraph:

But some who call themselves libertarian are actually anarchists who oppose any restraints via social contract. And others are more like modern day liberals who reject social contract and want government to create a utopia for them.

The true libertarian wants his/her rights secured and then to be left alone to live his/her life as s/he chooses. The true libertarian allows for whatever social contract accomplishes that and also allows for those who choose to separate from society and live apart.

Freedom implies every manner of choice that does not infringe on somebody elses rights/freedom. And a right is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other.

So it sounds like at best there is quite a wide scope of variations in the definition of 'libertarianism'. I believe in most of the world it means something closer to anarchy.
In any case you've contradicted yourself where you opined that libertarianism has a "specific definition". Being different things to different people isn't what I call "specific". But it's not the first thing you've ever got wrong.

That's why I'm going to stay with "liberalism" when referring to the 18th century movement that founded this country. It's stable.

I think when a lot of wags in here (and media) say "liberal" (modern) what they mean is "leftist". But that's a conflation; they're not the same thing either.

 

[Pogo]

Well Glenn Beck is essentially a shock-jock as far as I can tell, and he can use the term progressive however he wants. Regardless, progressivism is a real and active political ideology today. Anybody who calls themselves a liberal today is probably actually a progressive, and many people openly identify as progressive. Yes, the examples I cited are dead, but their ideals are expressed by today's "liberals." Obama is a progressive, Pelosi is a progressive, and on and on.

There was split in the liberal Democratic Party near the turn of the century, where some began to follow William Jennings Bryan, and became progressives, and those who still believed in the liberal ideals and stayed supporters of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats. The progressives won the day, of course, and many of the old liberals faded into obscurity or tried their hand in the Republican Party, which didn't really work out that well for them, and faded into obscurity regardless.

If "progressivism" is a real and active ideology, it's strange that no one can describe it.

I'm not convinced it's any more than the demagoguery of, as you said, a shock jock. I don't hear anyone calling themselves "progressive"; I only hear it as a label pinned on by others, which makes it pretty much meaningless.

I'm not even sure why we're on this tangent; if no one can describe it, let's drop it as a nonentity.

Who's left? The top 20 US progressives

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

Strange that people who could be considered progressives are using the term progressive, if it's just a tool of Glenn Beck.

All you've given me there is references to certain people being called "progressives" by others, i.e. in the third person; I still don't see anyone actually claiming it. That doesn't give me any kind of description as far as liberal vs. conservative vs. left vs. right. It doesn't look like this term has a home on the political spectrum.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

I know what you're saying on the carpet. Though I'm sure you'd agree that if you moved into a planned community where that was a rule going in then it would be perfectly fine. If government does it through force then I would agree it's not.

Gated communities and so on generally have something to that effect written in to the contract. The difference here is essentially in the timing. If I voluntarily agree to a contract then that's one thing, a so-called "social contract" that I never signed being forced upon me after the fact is coercion and violence against me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

Social contract is not dependent on the status of the organization. Social contract is a concept, a means of organizating a society by mutual consent, a way of accomplishing common goals via a common effort.

In many circumstance the dissenting person can be allowed to opt out and neither contribute to or benefit from the project at hand. We see that a lot in rural communities who say want to put in a common sewer system. If most or many vote against it, it won't be done. If a few who are already there don't want to participate, they are grandfathered out rather than violate the original social contract. The new people moving into the area may not be offered the ability to opt out lest more and more septic systems contaminate everybody's drinking water. Just as if you move into a zoned area with an existing homeowner's assocaition, if you want to buy or build there, you are obligated to abide by the rules and regs and pay your dues to that homeowner's assocaition developed via social contract by homeowners who chose that means to protect property values for all. Zoning laws in towns and cities are for the same purpose.

There is no cut and dried way to handle any given issue. But in the process of social contract, a free people with realistic goals almost always manage to work it out.

Allowing people to opt out changes the scenario entirely. If I can choose not to pay the tax for education then that's no problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If "progressivism" is a real and active ideology, it's strange that no one can describe it.

I'm not convinced it's any more than the demagoguery of, as you said, a shock jock. I don't hear anyone calling themselves "progressive"; I only hear it as a label pinned on by others, which makes it pretty much meaningless.

I'm not even sure why we're on this tangent; if no one can describe it, let's drop it as a nonentity.

Who's left? The top 20 US progressives

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

Strange that people who could be considered progressives are using the term progressive, if it's just a tool of Glenn Beck.

All you've given me there is references to certain people being called "progressives" by others, i.e. in the third person; I still don't see anyone actually claiming it. That doesn't give me any kind of description as far as liberal vs. conservative vs. left vs. right. It doesn't look like this term has a home on the political spectrum.

Yes, except for the fact that the people using the term progressive in those links can be considered progressives themselves. Glenn Greenwald, for example, is a well-known progressive.

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated...

- co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);...

GGSideDocs: Frequently told lies (FTLs)

 

[Bfgrn]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Our founding fathers were neither libertarians nor classical liberals in the sense that they were not laissez-faire capitalists. They regulated the hell out of corporations and tightly controlled everything they did. Even demanding to see their books. All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general in the state they were chartered.

And public education paid for by all citizens was one of the core values our Founding Fathers named as fundamental to a free, democratic society.

"Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a human and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."
John Adams

"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
Thomas Jefferson - 1786 August 13. (to George Wythe)

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson -1787 December 20. (to James Madison)

 

[Pogo]

Who's left? The top 20 US progressives

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

Strange that people who could be considered progressives are using the term progressive, if it's just a tool of Glenn Beck.

All you've given me there is references to certain people being called "progressives" by others, i.e. in the third person; I still don't see anyone actually claiming it. That doesn't give me any kind of description as far as liberal vs. conservative vs. left vs. right. It doesn't look like this term has a home on the political spectrum.

Yes, except for the fact that the people using the term progressive in those links can be considered progressives themselves. Glenn Greenwald, for example, is a well-known progressive.

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated...

- co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);...

GGSideDocs: Frequently told lies (FTLs)

Coriolis effect. You've explained a circular argument with another circular argument. There's still no definition. A guy using a common English adjective doesn't make a political movement.

 

[Pogo]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Our founding fathers were neither libertarians nor classical liberals in the sense that they were not laissez-faire capitalists. They regulated the hell out of corporations and tightly controlled everything they did. Even demanding to see their books. All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general in the state they were chartered.

And public education paid for by all citizens was one of the core values our Founding Fathers named as fundamental to a free, democratic society.

"Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a human and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."
John Adams

"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
Thomas Jefferson - 1786 August 13. (to George Wythe)

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson -1787 December 20. (to James Madison)

Excellent reminder. Although "regulated the hell out of" does sound excessive, it's the normal state of affairs as regards corporations, who, we tend to forget, exist at the pleasure of the people and not the other way around. At least that's the way it was intended before SCOTUS and the robber barons perverted the concept*. But it's always a worthy venture to remember who's in charge of corporate charters.

* -- which "progressives" like TR at least tried to address (<et voilà).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All you've given me there is references to certain people being called "progressives" by others, i.e. in the third person; I still don't see anyone actually claiming it. That doesn't give me any kind of description as far as liberal vs. conservative vs. left vs. right. It doesn't look like this term has a home on the political spectrum.

Yes, except for the fact that the people using the term progressive in those links can be considered progressives themselves. Glenn Greenwald, for example, is a well-known progressive.

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated...

- co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);...

GGSideDocs: Frequently told lies (FTLs)

Coriolis effect. You've explained a circular argument with another circular argument. There's still no definition. A guy using a common English adjective doesn't make a political movement.

Except I've given multiple examples of the term being used, and now you're moving the goal posts.

 

[Agit8r]

It WAS tried, and it worked. The country it was tried in was the United States.

lol. what year was that?

 

[S.J.]

It WAS tried, and it worked. The country it was tried in was the United States.

lol. what year was that?

Hardy har har. You're just too fucking funny.