Let's talk about liberal philosophies, shall we?

Ooookay. You should take whatever medicine you're supposed to be taking now, nice man. Watch out for cracks in the sidewalk.

 

Nuh uh. Not fucking happening.

Even liberals'-slash-Progressives' definitions of the difference are negligible.

Statists are fucking statists. They keep changing the name of their movement, but the gist of their movement is always the same. Steal from those who do shit with their lives, skim a shitload off the top of what they fucking steal, and give the rest to the unmotivated in order to maintain a system where there is always a shitload of poor people to steal on behalf of and a barely sufficient pool of productive people to steal from in order to keep the poor poor, keep the ambitious enslaved and keep the bureaucrats pampered.

Stop defending it, John. Stop defending graft. Stop. Defending. It.

It's theft. It's a scam. Stop defending it.

You claim to have compassion for the poor? Fine. Stop defending a scheme that keeps them poor.

 

"Statist" is very different from "progressive." It is generally people on the left who have insisted--correctly in my opinion--that people like Stalin were "statists" rather than "communists" or "socialists" (it was RickDeckard who started widely using the term in Wordforge political discussions). The term "statist" has little to do with the right-left philosophy one pretends to espouse (note the word "pretend") but with the general idea that "the State" should intervene in many things, to "make society work right." You will note for example that the religious conservative movement is very much statist, though there is no way anyone would call them "progressives."

Statists are toward the other end of the spectrum from libertarians in the same way that progressives (or liberals) are toward the other end of the spectrum from conservatives.

It would be a shame not to recognize a term that is useful in describing a position just because you think it is somehow aimed at you. I don't think it should just be derided as a "buzzword."

 

No. Wrong. People that want to do exactly what people like Stalin and Lenin did try to convince their prospective victims that they're not trying to do the same thing.

Nobody -- nobody -- should be stupid enough to fall for those promises.

Leftists always want to do exactly what Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Chavez, Castro, etc. did -- because those motherfuckers every single one claimed to be different from every single thieving, murdering, statist mother fucker that came before them.

They all fucking lied, which tells us all that every single mother fucker that is ever going to come along spouting those same rainbow-hued sparkly mother fucking platitudes is also a fucking liar who will end up stealing from and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

So, fucking no. This ideology you adhere to? We've fucking seen it, already. We've seen what your saccharin mother fucking promises lead to, already.

We. Know. Better. Than. To. Believe. You. Lying. Fuckers. Any. More.

Pack it up, bitches. You are fucking done.

 

I'm seriously, I'm weary of this shit. Liberals? They fucking lie when they describe themselves as "liberals." They don't want to fucking liberate anybody. Progressives? Another fucking lie, they're not pushing for progress.

These mother fuckers are pushing for Statism, plain, pure, fuckin' simply. But nobody was ever liberated by being strangled in the restraints of the state. No progress was ever made when individuals were yoked under the burden of the state.

These mother fuckers lie with every word. Every fucking word. They are pathological, institutional liars. And I'm weary of it. I'm fucking tired of that shit. Tired.

Tired.

Fess up, you fucking cunts. Admit to what you are. You're Statists. You're fucking authoritarians.

You might as well fucking 'fess up, because nobody is buying your fucking disguise anymore.

 

The problem with almost all political discourse is that the words involved - socialist, progressive, conservative, libertarian and so on - are all so distorted and emptied of meaning by ideological warfare that we probably should agree on a definition from first principles before we start talking about anything.

I'm broadly a libertarian, democratic socialist, in line with people like George Orwell and Noam Chomsky. I reject attempts to link that with Stalinism, or with American liberalism.

 

Statist has become a buzzword by the insane here - look at Frontline's definition, which meant anyone who advocated for the rule of law was a 'statist.' The far right, and I mean the WAY FAR RIGHT use it every third word now. To them, New Gingrich and Mitt Romney are Statists.

It's going to be a dismissed term, because its abused so much.

The people that use the term are John Castle - fucking idiots.

Its bereft of meaning because its misapplied so constantly. It is THE buzzword for the far right, and has the same meaning as 'COMMUNIST!' did in the 50s.

Which means if it's appropriate, its surely through accident because its misapplied with such conviction and frequency.

 

I'm pretty much with you here. If we consider statism-libertarianism as one form of political spectrum, what we are really saying is that there are multiple dimensions to political theory. We've all seen this in that political compass grid. So there can be progressive and conservative libertarians, progressive and conservative statists (the compass uses the term authoritarian). If John is using a similar lens, then he is likely voicing his rejection of Castle's claim that progressivism automatically equates with statism. It is people like John Castle, rendering meaningful terms meaningless to which I object. And when we allow him to get away with it, we are essentially giving in to the toddler's tantrum.

 

I always thought "progressive", just meant "prefers progress".

Well, if you're typing on this fucking board, much less have an I-Phone, or I-Pad, or XBox 720, or whatever, means you're a fucking "progressive", in my book.



Fucking FoxNews and Glenn Beck are the ones that tried to get it to mean "thugs kicking down your door".

Excuse me, but wouldn't that be...REgressive?

 

Depends. Are you talking dictionary definition or political definition? In dictionary terms, "progressive" just means something like "gradually increases," as in progressive tax rates - you get taxed at a higher rate as your income goes up. In political-economic reality, that's actually a regressive tax scheme, because it actively discourages success (somewhat simplified example).

"Progressive" as used by the modern American left is simply a substitution word for "liberal." Lots of folks associate negative connotations with the L word these days, so people on that side try to avoid using it. Kinda like calling illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" to make them less . . . illegal.

It always amuses me to observe that "progressive" was one of the communists' favorite terms for themselves.

 

You're right. There's never been a successful insurgency or resistance movement anywhere, ever, in the history of mankind. Might as well pack it in and just lay down and wait for the boot to stomp on our faces.

Or I could point out that the oath the military takes is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the preening imbecile in the White House.

 

Define "political definition".
"Political", as in "politically correct"?
As in "campaign gamesmanship"?

Y'know, fuck it, let's go with dictionary.

And you know what the real word for those people is?
Chickenshits.

Who cares?
Scientology has science in its name, but it's voodoo.

 

Actually quite a good example. Scientology pretends to be based in science, hence the name. Progressives want people to think they favor actual progress, which is almost the polar opposite of their real aims.

 

Except that your claim isn't true. It wasn't true even when marginal rates were at 90%, it's certainly not true at 39%. Continuing to make this claim only makes you look foolish.

You can thank Lee Atwater and George HW bush for that, with their rhetoric about "dangerous liberals." And you can thank yourself and the other fools who bought in to it. John Castle didn't invent the idea of changing definitions for the sake of pummeling the political opposition.

There you to again, with sky is green observations. Cut the crap and use real definitions instead of inventing more strawmen.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit A. ^^^

 

If you're happy following the John Castle school of political debate, then more power to you. I'll call you on it every time.

 

14thD is right. When this came up lately and it was pointed that gun holders would have no chance against the US military, the position adopted by gun-advocates was along the lines that the idea was not for them to overthrow the government, but for them to persuade the military to do so. I find that incredibly dangerous.

 

Some.
Hell, let's say many.
So what?
Fuck those people.

I'm not letting them take my fucking word.

Freethought Blogs are a bunch of little ban-Nazis, and DMCA take-downers.
Fuck them, I'm still a freethinker.

Atheism Plus are the same little Nazis when they're wearing their armbands.
Fuck them, I'm still an atheist.
What, I have to make up a new word for what not believing in God is?
Bullshit.
Then it never stops, you gotta make one up every week.
Fuck that chicken-shittery.

 

It's not necessary to persuade the military to overthrow the government. It's only necessary to persuade them that they're acting in violation of their oath. History provides examples of national militaries being convinced to "sit it out" and the citizens going on to sort out the government on their own.

 

"Democratic Underground" should be a rock band.

Because then the drummer could have statist cymbals.

 

Because a military coup is always a good idea.

 

Calm down before you pass out, sport.

 

How exactly do you envision this scenario taking place in the USA? What's the tipping point in this elaborate fantasy?

 

Could be any one of several. President declares martial law with no existential crisis to justify it, or tries to suspend the Constitution, or Congress tries to void the bill of rights without a constitutional convention . . .

Or it could be as simple as federal troops sent to seize a private armory. That's happened before, after all.

 

"One of the general positions of the current "progressive" or liberal philosophy is statism: government knows best. Under this rubric, individuals should rely on the state to protect them and therefore have no need to personally own or possess firearms"

Typical conservative caricature of progressive philosophy, about as valid as equating conservatism with Fascism. Progressivism is defined best by what it's FOR--a use of the power and ability of government to do something positive to enhance people's lives and expand their opportunities for achievement. The only interest progressives have in the realm of guns, is the same interest law enforcement officers have--making sensible regulations to insure that nutbars, crooks and kids can't get guns while sane adult citizens can get them for protection or sport.

If that's statism George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were statists.

 

Why? Checks and balances only work as long as branches of government aren't colluding. When they do, they all get progressively more and more power. And these are the only people you want to have guns? Are you kidding?

Big business, on the other hand, is subject to market pressures. Absent regulatory capture (a prerequisite of which is regulatory power) they can't actually coerce anyone without the basic laws against aggressive force and fraud being brought to bear against them... unless the government won't enforce those laws because they've been bought off, in which case you need the people to have guns so they can fight back.

But if business doesn't pay the government not to prosecute it, then its coercions are curbed, and everything else "bad" they do can be stopped by not buying from them. To the extent this doesn't happen, these companies' products are actually improving lots of people's lives, by definition than any other way those people can spend that money at that point in time. Additionally, when companies do things people don't like, the response time is much, much faster than (on average) the year or 2 or 3 until the next election for that position. How many days did it take Chik-Fil-A to make an about-face? How many years since the Patriot Act was signed?

Faith in democratic government power also assumes a good people to do the electing (and failing to re-elect). That's a pretty terrible assumption, really, and the history of this country and yours (eg: treatment of native populations, even to the present day) is replete with examples of this.

This is a touch over-simplified in that it ignores actual (not just potential or perceived) externalities, but I'd wager the vast majority of regulation is not about protecting a commons.

 

In case you didn't notice, it's hard enough for a single party to collude lately, let along entire branches of government.

No?

When did I say that?

Are you?

Nah. Small and medium business, sure. Big business? Big business is able to distort the market and eliminate those pressures.

So "the people" can't really be trusted when they're acting as voters, but you expect me to trust them when they're acting as consumers?

 

What are the big differences between liberal and conservative philosophies?

Cuz once elected most every politician contributes to maintaining the status quo.

 

Oh and this thread could use a little less venom and a little more funny. Don't get me wrong, insults can be hilarious, but simply being snotty? Not so much.

 

I've had him on ignore for a long time and don't respond to him at all so where are these mythical shouting matches between me and him supposedly taking place?

Never mind. The post was by Asyn so I guess reality is optional.