PDA

View Full Version : One way to win: Libertarians + Progressives




cdc482
09-30-2011, 11:20 AM
First, I am going to attempt to get you to drop any unfair stigmas about progressives.

Consider:
The ethicality of a flat tax assumes that everyone has equal ability to earn money. This is not true. For example, someone who invested in Google during their IPO did not have to work anywhere near as hard as some of my coworkers at Dunkin Donuts in NJ (where putting in 70 hours/week barely makes end's meat) but reaped a much greater reward. For this reason, most progressives propose a fair tax that is an equal % for all groups. Before you say, "well they could have looked into investing," consider, who has time/money for college or extra studying when working 70 hours/week for somewhere to sleep and food to eat.

However, the main catagory of difference between progressives and libertarians is social programs and regulations on business. The latter is really not a difference when it comes to Ron Paul. Ron Paul maintains that corporations have no right to pollute. He just looks at the issue from a different scope than most progressives. As far as social programs go, Ron Paul has said many times that he would not eliminate them as president. Rather, he would allow people to opt-out if they choose, something progressives and libertarians can agree on.

The main difference is moral regulations such as minimum wage. While most of us sympathize with progressives values, we do not see government as the vehicle to make social change. Nonetheless, I assume we are both in agreement about the overall issue, as Ron Paul has said many times that he believes personally we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

Libertarians and progressives infighting is like Hilary-supporters and Obama-supporters in fighting. The two are essentially the same, and they would be able to make a bigger difference by coming together. A lot of us view this election as winning over the conservatives who traditionally vote in primaries. Ron Paul has become very well known among them, and his numbers are topping off around 15%. Progressives are displeased with Obama, and have a lot to gain from registering Republican and voting for Ron Paul. I suggest we shift our focus. Ron Paul is about truth, peace, freedom, consistency, and fairness, something progressives understand a whole lot better than conservatives.

Agree or disagree?

erowe1
09-30-2011, 11:26 AM
Libertarians and progressives infighting is like Hilary-supporters and Obama-supporters in fighting. The two are essentially the same,

You couldn't be more wrong.

Original_Intent
09-30-2011, 11:32 AM
Strongly disagree. Neocons are the progressive wing of the GOP - they fight the "liberal" progressives more as theatre than substantial disagreements. (They will fight different postions but govern almost identically.)

To the extent that we can get progressives to register GOP and support Paul, great.

ericams2786
09-30-2011, 11:46 AM
First, I am going to attempt to get you to drop any unfair stigmas about progressives.

Consider:
The ethicality of a flat tax assumes that everyone has equal ability to earn money. This is not true. For example, someone who invested in Google during their IPO did not have to work anywhere near as hard as some of my coworkers at Dunkin Donuts in NJ (where putting in 70 hours/week barely makes end's meat) but reaped a much greater reward. For this reason, most progressives propose a fair tax that is an equal % for all groups. Before you say, "well they could have looked into investing," consider, who has time/money for college or extra studying when working 70 hours/week for somewhere to sleep and food to eat.

However, the main catagory of difference between progressives and libertarians is social programs and regulations on business. The latter is really not a difference when it comes to Ron Paul. Ron Paul maintains that corporations have no right to pollute. He just looks at the issue from a different scope than most progressives. As far as social programs go, Ron Paul has said many times that he would not eliminate them as president. Rather, he would allow people to opt-out if they choose, something progressives and libertarians can agree on.

The main difference is moral regulations such as minimum wage. While most of us sympathize with progressives values, we do not see government as the vehicle to make social change. Nonetheless, I assume we are both in agreement about the overall issue, as Ron Paul has said many times that he believes personally we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

Libertarians and progressives infighting is like Hilary-supporters and Obama-supporters in fighting. The two are essentially the same, and they would be able to make a bigger difference by coming together. A lot of us view this election as winning over the conservatives who traditionally vote in primaries. Ron Paul has become very well known among them, and his numbers are topping off around 15%. Progressives are displeased with Obama, and have a lot to gain from registering Republican and voting for Ron Paul. I suggest we shift our focus. Ron Paul is about truth, peace, freedom, consistency, and fairness, something progressives understand a whole lot better than conservatives.

Agree or disagree?

NO you are completely wrong! You need to study the early Progressive movement in America, look at what they wrote and advocated for, and look at how a lot of what they wanted we have now. No, libertarians are the EXACT opposite of Progressives, even if we can agree on some things. The philosophy is completely the opposite. No No No!

1000-points-of-fright
09-30-2011, 12:00 PM
he would allow people to opt-out if they choose, something progressives and libertarians can agree on.

You sure about that? I think a progressive would advocate throwing you in jail (and shooting you if you resisted) rather than let anyone opt-out.

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 12:05 PM
The true libertarian standpoint is that all forced taxation (aka extortion) is immoral, including "flat' and "fair" taxes. Does that mesh with the "progressive" viewpoint, or are they still keen on using aggressive force to run other people's personal lives and fiances?

cdc482
09-30-2011, 12:32 PM
I don't know much about early progressive thought, but all the progressives I know (think John Stewart) are almost libertarian. Please explain the difference. I would love to hear more.

erowe1
09-30-2011, 12:35 PM
No matter what the problem is, the progressive answer is for the government to do more, and the libertarian answer is for the government to do less.

I don't really follow John Stewart. What are his almost libertarian positions?

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 12:42 PM
I don't know much about early progressive thought, but all the progressives I know (think John Stewart) are almost libertarian. Please explain the difference. I would love to hear more.

There are overlaps, on corporate welfare, corporate personhood, endless warfare/interventionism, the drug war, etc.

But, progressives as I know them like giant federal redistributive programs. This part of their platform is completely anti-liberty. Also, most seem to be strong federalists -- favoring a one size fits all national state, rather than localism.

cdc482
09-30-2011, 12:44 PM
There are overlaps, on corporate welfare, corporate personhood, endless warfare/interventionism, the drug war, etc.

But, progressives as I know them like giant federal redistributive programs. This part of their platform is completely anti-liberty.

If you read the OP, you'll see that RP and progressives both agree that we should help others; however, libertarians do not see government as the best vehicle to help others. This is it. That is the only difference between the two that I have found to date! Please show me more if you can. I still see progressives and libertarians as two of the same.

muzzled dogg
09-30-2011, 12:48 PM
using the word progressive loosely, and coming from the bluest state in the republic, i very much agree with you

in fact i'd go as far as to say that these folks are libertarians but don't know it

but that is assuming you mean progressive = liberal , which it doesn't

erowe1
09-30-2011, 12:50 PM
If you read the OP, you'll see that RP and progressives both agree that we should help others; however, libertarians do not see government as the best vehicle to help others. This is it. That is the only difference between the two that I have found to date! Please show me more if you can. I still see progressives and libertarians as two of the same.

Doesn't that one difference encompass everything about both groups?

It's not like there's some political philosophy out there that's anti-helping people.

Nate
09-30-2011, 12:52 PM
I don't really follow John Stewart. What are his almost libertarian positions?

Strong anti-interventionist tendencies, pro-civil liberties, anti-corporate welfare. There is a segment of the "progressive" movement that has developed many anti-authoritarian tendencies over the years & are more in line with the New Left of the 60's who were libertarian allies on many issues. Jon Stewart represents this group of people, he could at least be a valuable ally & maybe even a potential convert along the way. His heart is in the right place it's just that sometimes his head gets in the way.

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 12:56 PM
Doesn't that one difference encompass everything about both groups?

It's not like there's some political philosophy out there that's anti-helping people.

Well, some "objectivists", but we won't go there ...

The Free Hornet
09-30-2011, 12:57 PM
The main difference is moral regulations such as minimum wage. While most of us sympathize with progressives values, we do not see government as the vehicle to make social change. Nonetheless, I assume we are both in agreement about the overall issue, as Ron Paul has said many times that he believes personally we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

The minimum wage is not a "moral regulation". It is one of the most immoral, poverty-inducing laws we have. The least you can pay someone is ZERO. That is what the minimum wage causes and our 10-25% unemployement (official vs real numbers) is proof of a failed policy. Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". There are a few groups happy with the minimum wage:

1) Unions that base their wages with the minimum as a starting point, for them an increase in the minimum wage is their signal to demand - with government force - a raise.

2) Those earning more that could be replaced by a multiple of people earning less (i.e., it is NOT spreading the wealth)

3) People in transient situations whose salary is raised until that time their job or employer is eliminated. Isn't it odd how many bad neighborhoods have no businesses. If you can't afford to staff a business, that vacant storefront will stay vacant and everyone loses. Blight spreads. Resources go unused.

4) Politicians who take credit for the money you earn now. This is why they feel no guilt in demanding a cut.

The progressives believe an unskilled laborer should be able to support a family of four as the sole breadwinner and have free (aka "universal") health care, subsidized housing (or free), food stamps, free education, job training (why? who needs a job lol). They expect your actual income should be applied to iPods and iTunes purchases (free smart phone social plans are coming).

Do you know why poverty is increasing? Wealth is goods and services. When people aren't working, the goods and services in the market decrease. Wealth is not created. Even if you only were able to work at 10% of your productive capacity, is not that better than 0%? How is it China can compete with our unemployed? Simply, in Communist China, it is not against the law to work or hire or fire or whatever. China is a right to work country while the US mandates a minimum level of productivity (the minimum wage plus associated hiring costs and risks which the government has increased). It is illegal to work or employ people in the United States without the blessing of government. They approve the conditions (wage and benefits, like social security), the risks (e.g., wrongful termination suits), and the people (e-verify?).


Libertarians and progressives infighting is like Hilary-supporters and Obama-supporters in fighting. The two are essentially the same, and they would be able to make a bigger difference by coming together.

?

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 12:57 PM
If you read the OP, you'll see that RP and progressives both agree that we should help others; however, libertarians do not see government as the best vehicle to help others. This is it. That is the only difference between the two that I have found to date! Please show me more if you can. I still see progressives and libertarians as two of the same.

Sure ... but that's a pretty big difference. Libertarians want to help others by reaching into their own pockets. "Progressives" want to help others by reaching into their neighbor's pocket.

cdc482
09-30-2011, 01:01 PM
Exactly!!! That is our only difference. And consider this. We are already reaching into the pockets of others to ensure liberty for all by financing police and military to benefit all of us. Progressives just go a little furthur saying that everyone also benefits from universal ACCESS health care (lower costs)

FrankRep
09-30-2011, 01:04 PM
Progressives just go a little furthur saying that everyone also benefits from universal ACCESS health care (lower costs)
You're on the wrong website. Goto Communist Party USA if you want Nationalized/Universal Health Care.

jmdrake
09-30-2011, 01:04 PM
Doesn't that one difference encompass everything about both groups?

It's not like there's some political philosophy out there that's anti-helping people.

Except many on the left think that libertarians are "anti-helping people" in the sense that they believe libertarians want the government out solely so that they can have more of their own money to selfishly spend on themselves. That's something that libertarians need to get beyond. The "compassionate libertarian" view is that government causes more problems than it solves. If you want people to "progress" get big government out of the way so that it's easier for them to help themselves. Case in point is Katrina. I have seen conservative jerks, including some here at RPF, going into "blame the victim" mode. "Those people should have just evacuated". The "blame the victim" conservatives conveniently forget that in hurricane Rita a few months later more people died in the evacuation than in the hurricane. But back to Katrina. The people in New Orleans would have been better off if FEMA hadn't existed. FEMA blocked aid and rescue workers from getting into New Orleans. FEMA became a single point of failure.

The Ron Paul movement doesn't need to change any of its values. But we could to a better job of explaining how less government = more progress.

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 01:08 PM
Exactly!!! That is our only difference. And consider this. We are already reaching into the pockets of others to ensure liberty for all by financing police and military to benefit all of us. Progressives just go a little furthur saying that everyone also benefits from universal ACCESS health care (lower costs)

Reaching into other people's pockets for those reasons is wrong too.

jmdrake
09-30-2011, 01:08 PM
Sure ... but that's a pretty big difference. Libertarians want to help others by reaching into their own pockets. "Progressives" want to help others by reaching into their neighbor's pocket.


Exactly!!! That is our only difference. And consider this. We are already reaching into the pockets of others to ensure liberty for all by financing police and military to benefit all of us. Progressives just go a little furthur saying that everyone also benefits from universal ACCESS health care (lower costs)


You're on the wrong website. Goto Communist Party USA if you want Nationalized/Universal Health Care.

Actually there is a potential small government / libertarian / Christian solution for healthcare for the uninsured.

See: http://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/

It's time to start offering solutions grounded in the principles of liberty instead of just shouting down other people's ideas. Play offense instead of just defense.

jmdrake
09-30-2011, 01:09 PM
I don't support reaching into other people's pockets for those reasons either.

I agree. I think those who want to continue the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and others should have to pay out of their own pockets and leave the rest of us alone.

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 01:10 PM
Here's the healthcare solution: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly09/healthcare07-09.html

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 01:10 PM
I agree. I think those who want to continue the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and others should have to pay out of their own pockets and leave the rest of us alone.

Yep, exactly right.

If the US were invaded, the amount of money and volunteers to help repel the attack would be massive. I doubt many would volunteer their own resources to continue this reckless foreign interventionism, however ...

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2011, 01:12 PM
strongly disagree. Neocons are the progressive wing of the gop - they fight the "liberal" progressives more as theatre than substantial disagreements. (they will fight different postions but govern almost identically.)

to the extent that we can get progressives to register gop and support paul, great.
ftw.

cdc482
09-30-2011, 01:14 PM
Wait a second. So you guys are against the police? In that case, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. The only way to ensure liberty for all is through taxes.
Furthur, universal ACCESS to healthcare is not communism.

cdc482
09-30-2011, 01:16 PM
Lastly, when I mentioned taxes for military, I meant for DEFENSE, not interventionism.

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 01:25 PM
Wait a second. So you guys are against the police?


I'm for police. I just don't believe in funding them via extortion. I'd be more than happy to pay a monthy fee to have someone I can call in case of a break-in, and someone to patrol the streets once in a while. I'd choose to support an organization that would provide services to the poor for free.


In that case, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian.

To me, "anarchism" means no rules. I believe in the enforcement of rules against harming other persons or their property. The difference is, I believe in the consistent application of those rules -- I don't believe theft and abuse become magically ok when the gang perpetrating them is large enough.

None of us would treat our neighbors this way, as individuals, and if we were to do so we'd land ourselves in jail. We need to start consistently applying the basic rules for moral decency we all learned in kindergarten, starting with "don't hit your neighbor and take their stuff", and stop imagining that popular opinion makes wrong right and right wrong.



The only way to ensure liberty for all is through taxes.


Extorting money from people violates their liberty, right off the bat. You might as well say that the only way to ensure virginity is sex, or the only way to ensure life is murder.

It's very Orwellian, actually.



Furthur, universal ACCESS to healthcare is not communism.

Define "access". Are you advocating extortion, or charity, trade, and free choice?

jmdrake
09-30-2011, 01:29 PM
Wait a second. So you guys are against the police? In that case, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. The only way to ensure liberty for all is through taxes.
Furthur, universal ACCESS to healthcare is not communism.

The town I lived in as a teenager had a volunteer fire department. Would you consider that "anarchy"? And do you think that universal access to healthcare has to be through the government? Did you click on the link I gave?

jmdrake
09-30-2011, 01:31 PM
Lastly, when I mentioned taxes for military, I meant for DEFENSE, not interventionism.

Are you familiar with the militia concept?

tremendoustie
09-30-2011, 01:33 PM
Are you familiar with the militia concept?

Not that the constitution is perfect -- far from it -- but this is actually the constitutional means of defense. "Armies" were only supposed to be raised in time of general attack, and not to be maintained for more than 2 years.

ericams2786
09-30-2011, 02:11 PM
I don't know much about early progressive thought, but all the progressives I know (think John Stewart) are almost libertarian. Please explain the difference. I would love to hear more.

Well for starters early Progressives not only shared a common root with Fascism, but they actually praised Fascism and yearned for it over here (many Progressives in the early 20th century praised Mussolini and his "corporate state" calling for a similar fusion of the government and corporations here in America). Look at Woodrow Wilson and his presidency for instance - scary stuff. In addition, much of what Progressives yearned for and advocated for during that time (birth control, abortion, even simply and seemingly harmless things like the minimum wage) actually had a eugenic component to them - that is - a desire to rid the population of the poor, "defective", and "inferior races" to create a more perfect population (I'm not making this up, there exists tons of evidence, mainly from early Progressive writings that show this to be the case - read anything Margaret Sanger wrote in calling for birth control - she hated blacks). In fact, Hitler even wrote in Mein Kampf that he wrote the president of the American Eugenics Society for a copy of his book - and was undoubtedly influenced by it.

Just a sample:

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

I'd argue, looking at modern day statistics concerning blacks and abortion; blacks and unemployment, that the Progressive dream of limiting the black population worked pretty well.

Be careful to lump libertarians in with Progressives. I'm willing to work with them on common ground and getting Paul elected, but we are not Progressives.

cdc482
09-30-2011, 04:41 PM
Basically everything everyone said is something that modern day progressives agree with.

In regards to taxation for police, I don't think there is a any other way to ensure liberty. If you know of a way to enforce liberty FOR EVERYONE without police, please share.
I'll give you that a militia should be used instead of a military.

In regards to universal health care: If we are all up to date on health care, we know that it is cheaper to have universal health care than all of these various insurance plans. I don't think this can happen in anyway besides government providing universal ACCESS. People still choose their doctor, but the government insures everyone, and pays everyone the average cost for their injury. The Christian plan wouldn't work because 1- it's only for Christian's and 2- people would have to say no to existing insurance options to join a new one, which will have a comparable cost until the majority of people follow through.

libertybrewcity
09-30-2011, 05:16 PM
progressives=fail

Republican voters=win

I don't know why Republicans think that socialists are going to vote for a Republican over one or two issues when they fundamentally disagree on so many different levels.

trey4sports
09-30-2011, 05:19 PM
i disagree with your idea that they are ideologically very similar, but yes, i agree that we will need them to win.

wide awake
09-30-2011, 06:55 PM
I think the disconnect here is there are two different discussions taking place:
- Philosophical incompatability between progressives and libertarians
- Tactical common ground for supporting Ron Paul

The philosophical discussion is a non-starter. Though both groups share common concerns, their solutions are vastly different.

The second discussion, which I think is what the OP was trying to discuss, is very reasonable. It doesn't help much for the GOP nomination in many states as it is unrealistic to expect large numbers of progressives to change party affiliation. It is a very valid tactical alliance in the general election, should Ron Paul win the GOP nomination. That's not to say a majority of progressives would support him but a significant number can and would... they would be Ron Paul's version of the Reagan Democrats (albeit a completely different political profile than what they had).

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2011, 07:17 PM
Well, some "objectivists", but we won't go there ...lolz ;)

heavenlyboy34
09-30-2011, 07:22 PM
progressives=fail

Republican voters=win

I don't know why Republicans think that socialists are going to vote for a Republican over one or two issues when they fundamentally disagree on so many different levels.Are "progressives" truly socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)in the traditional sense? AFAIK, they only support certain parts of the socialist "programme". In my experience, there is some overlap with fascists among "progressives".

Birdlady
09-30-2011, 07:36 PM
Basically everything everyone said is something that modern day progressives agree with.

...

In regards to universal health care: If we are all up to date on health care, we know that it is cheaper to have universal health care than all of these various insurance plans. I don't think this can happen in anyway besides government providing universal ACCESS. People still choose their doctor, but the government insures everyone, and pays everyone the average cost for their injury. The Christian plan wouldn't work because 1- it's only for Christian's and 2- people would have to say no to existing insurance options to join a new one, which will have a comparable cost until the majority of people follow through.

Have you ever been sick with something doctors did not have the answer to? From what you wrote in this post, I would say no.

I have been chronically ill since I was 16 and I can assure you that simply having healthcare is not the answer to having BETTER HEALTH. That is the misconception that "progressives" like to use and you kind of hinted towards this. Anyone who has a chronic illness can tell you just how much healthcare in this country fails. It's not because some people don't have insurance policies, it's because the health care system in this country is not about prevention or curing patients. It is about selling pharmaceuticals to people to keep them customers for the rest of their lives. The only thing that Universal heathcare would do is line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies EVEN MORE. They rich get richer and the poor gets poorer health care service. It has nothing to do with better health at all.

You cannot have govt in the healthcare business because they have no intentions of giving the "average cost" for an injury. They will then become ruthless. Denying care, refusing to cover tests, exams and whatever else for individuals and screwing over the doctors who join their system. You will watch as doctors leave the universal healthcare system to practice privately. Trust me, what you think is caused by too little govt is actually from too much govt. If you think govt healthcare is great, please by all means head to the VA and see how it goes for you...

cdc482
09-30-2011, 07:58 PM
I think that John Stewart and other modern day progressives are almost libertarian as described. I think you are all biased. Birdlady, I agree. That is why a universal ACCESS program would just give you money (so you can at least afford the treatment of your choice), and you can pick an alternative form of medicine. I think it is mostly consistent with libertarian ism, as is the EPA. I would really like to discuss these issues more with RP people.

Birdlady
09-30-2011, 08:01 PM
I think that John Stewart and other modern day progressives are almost libertarian as described. I think you are all biased. Birdlady, I agree. That is why a universal ACCESS program would just give you money (so you can at least afford the treatment of your choice), and you can pick an alternative form of medicine. I think it is mostly consistent with libertarian ism, as is the EPA. I would really like to discuss these issues more with RP people.

There is no way that the govt would allow you to choose alternative medicine. You are dreaming if you think this would happen. Look at the FDA's assault on supplements.

tremendoustie
10-02-2011, 12:43 PM
In regards to taxation for police, I don't think there is a any other way to ensure liberty. If you know of a way to enforce liberty FOR EVERYONE without police, please share.

Do you mean without police at all, or without police funded by taxes/extortion?

I don't propose the former. The latter is simple. Most people already believe in providing police services to those who can't afford them. That's why they're paid for with taxes right now. I think a majority of people, including me, would happily subscribe to local police services which are done effectively, and that protect the truly poor free of charge.

Of course, I'd never support an agency which went after people for drug possession, or other victim-less crimes.

tremendoustie
10-02-2011, 12:55 PM
In regards to universal health care: If we are all up to date on health care, we know that it is cheaper to have universal health care than all of these various insurance plans.

Actually, that's the opposite of the truth, and the only reason it's so expensive now is because government has been manipulating the market, at the behest of the big insurance and drug companies, for the last 40+ years.


I don't think this can happen in anyway besides government providing universal ACCESS.

Um, yes it can. Please see the real solution here: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly09/healthcare07-09.html


People still choose their doctor, but the government insures everyone,

You mean your goons extort money from some people, then hand it to others, while wasting 50+% of it? No thanks.



and pays everyone the average cost for their injury.

Yeah, no potential for abuse there ...


The Christian plan wouldn't work because

Actually, it already works. I have a personal friend on a similar program, who was recently flown to Germany for an experimental procedure, that was ultimately successful. No traditional insurance company would have paid for it.


1- it's only for Christian's

It could work for anyone. Look up "mutual aid societies" if you want to understand how it used to work. In the south, during segregation, when black people were not allowed to use "white" hospitals, they often combined their resources to create their own hospitals, and hire their own doctors. In many cases, these hospitals were not only state of the art, but actually far better than the "white" ones.

Of course, the government ultimately regulated them out of existance ...


2- people would have to say no to existing insurance options to join a new one, which will have a comparable cost until the majority of people follow through.

This sentence is makes no sense.

cdc482
10-06-2011, 11:33 AM
I hope you are all beginning to realize that the extreme right and extreme left are very similar. Go far in either direction, and you'll end up in the same place.
Here are our commonalities:
1. The Federal Reserve system must end.
2. The US must stop policing the world.
3. We must restore and ensure liberty for all people.
4. We are the only groups that offer honest, consistent, and ethical politicians.
5. We must end corporate welfare.

Our only notable differences are among social programs and economic regulations. Is this really a priority for us? Or are the previously mentioned points a priority? To accomplish these points, with who should we join forces?
The Republicans, who have long been screwing people?
Ron Paul didn't in 2008. Instead he created a 3rd party coalition. His message was clear. The third parties together are the majority. We agree on the most important points, and we must work together to achieve them.

Even considering our few differences, we are not really all that different. Consider social programs. Most of us value these social programs, just not on the federal level. Ron Paul wouldn't get rid of them. He'd offer an opt-out, which Progressives agree with. Our other difference, economic regulation, is also minor. We both agree that the economy must be regulated, but we believe in two different vehicles to do so.

Progressives and Libertarians must unite to achieve positive change. Stop squabbling over petty differences. Our differences are minuscule compared to the enormous differences between us and the status quo.

Ron Paul may have been considered Republican in the 1980s, but today, he is far more Green and Progressive than Republican.

I'm not saying to stop going after Republican converts. I'm just saying that third party converts are more realistic. If we want to win, this is where we should put our efforts. I do think the polls are wrong. Because the polls look at typical republican voters, not the many already awakened third party voters who will be voting for Ron Paul.

Go after Republicans if you want. But you are a fool for chasing pennies, when there is a giant pile of $100 dollar bills within your reach.

dannno
10-06-2011, 01:29 PM
I don't really follow John Stewart. What are his almost libertarian positions?

Besides legalizing cannabis, gay marriage, and civil liberties?

The Free Hornet
10-06-2011, 01:35 PM
I hope you are all beginning to realize that the extreme right and extreme left are very similar. Go far in either direction, and you'll end up in the same place.

If you don't define your terms, you are wasting everyone's time. Consider the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz) to begin understanding how wrong you are.

This is not to say you can't pick up support among the progressive movement. There are two reasons for this.

1) Some Progressives are willing to de-emphasize socialism in favor of peace and civil liberties (yes, I agree socialism is in conflict with peace and civil liberties)

2) Some in the Progressive movement are more anti-corporatism and they might be convertable to a libertarian philosophy.

The true believers like Michael Moore or Van Jones are an absolute lost cause. Ron Paul is the last thing they want (unless it is to spoil an election they hope for their guy or gal to win).

The Free Hornet
10-06-2011, 01:37 PM
Besides legalizing cannabis, gay marriage, and civil liberties?

Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a buffet.

cdc482
10-06-2011, 08:18 PM
Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a buffet.

First of all, by defining all these isms you're just dividing all the good people up into different groupings, so that none of us can manage to get any of us elected.
Secondly, politics isn't a philosophy. It is a buffet, and we're being trampled by the greedy powers who understand that. It's time for us to work together and put aside petty differences. The most socialist things about as are really not all that bad considering the many worse crimes currently being committed. Get your priorities straight.

The Free Hornet
10-06-2011, 09:53 PM
The most socialist things about as are really not all that bad considering the many worse crimes currently being committed. Get your priorities straight.

1 Currency collapse (hyperinflation, destruction of savings)
2 Mass genocide (62 million in the USSR alone)
3 Rationing of health care services
4 Nanny state (when the government pays for your health, what you put in your body becomes their business)
5 Deficit spending that puts us in perpetual debt and servitude*

*Debt is just a backdoor tax increase

My priorities are straight. As to putting people in groups, that is life. Political parties can contain diverse political philosophies. This does not justify equivocating as you do:


Libertarians and progressives infighting is like Hilary-supporters and Obama-supporters in fighting. The two are essentially the same, and they would be able to make a bigger difference by coming together.

This quote is another example of why it is critical to provide your definitions:


I don't know much about early progressive thought, but all the progressives I know (think John Stewart) are almost libertarian.

You offer no definitions of either yet claim,


I still see progressives and libertarians as two of the same.


In regards to universal health care: If we are all up to date on health care, we know that it is cheaper to have universal health care than all of these various insurance plans. I don't think this can happen in anyway besides government providing universal ACCESS. People still choose their doctor , but the government insures everyone, and pays everyone the average cost for their injury. The Christian plan wouldn't work because 1- it's only for Christian's and 2- people would have to say no to existing insurance options to join a new one, which will have a comparable cost until the majority of people follow through.


Furthur, universal ACCESS to healthcare is not communism.


That is why a universal ACCESS program would just give you money (so you can at least afford the treatment of your choice), and you can pick an alternative form of medicine. I think it is mostly consistent with libertarian ism, as is the EPA.


Most of us value these social programs, just not on the federal level. Ron Paul wouldn't get rid of them.

Note this is false on all counts. Most forum members do not value these "social programs". They are bad at the state level but financially fatal to the nation on the federal level. Ron Paul would get rid of them and he would not be encouraging states to start up their equivalents. Some forum members may disagree with this and focus on peace and ending the drug war or whatnot. I doubt they are the core of this group. Ron Paul is a self-described libertarian (which means nothing to you as you don't know what that means).

Lastly,


First of all, by defining all these isms you're just dividing all the good people up into different groupings, so that none of us can manage to get any of us elected.

You define your terms to have an intelligent conversation. You refuse and your usage suggests no understanding - like a four-year old saying 'fuck'. You even claim the very act of definition would be "dividing". On some level, you must have intelligence and rationality but where? I've run into your type before and it is infuriating. The type that can soak up all the facts in the world and still have no understanding. Maybe you should spend some time at the library and stop learning political philosophy from comedian pundits that are explicitly not trying to educate. They can inform and entertain, but they do not educate.

Here are two classics that are very easy reads and online:

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

They won't define the political terms you misuse, but might provide an understanding of why political philosophies (from an economic perspective first) are important. I hate to show my cards, but this is my favorite:

http://peikoff.com/opar/home.htm

CaptainAmerica
10-06-2011, 10:25 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. I cant believe people are so naive. Progressives are the ones who created big government in the first place, the neo-cons are just another faction of the "progressive" movement......its pathetic. Progressives are completely opposite of Ron Paul.

Philosophy_of_Politics
10-06-2011, 10:27 PM
Ron Paul is a regressive. It's the progressive movement that caused many of the issues to begin with. Progressives are the ones that commonly decide the constitution to be a "living document" that should change over time to adapt to society. While this seems to be a noble concept, it's also what opened abuse to the constitution, and where it has left us to begin with.

This is why Ron Paul is such a strong candidate, because regressing back to our former nation is the most beneficial, to all of us. This is why Ron Paul's movement see's such a wide variety of people with differing political biases. It's because the ideals he preaches, IS the true progress, and the progress is regressing back from what has been done. The ideals he preaches, are stronger than the pride that consumes each political party. The ideals he represents, are regressive; because the government trying to do more and progress, is the issue. So now that the progressive movement failed, horribly. The only real progress is to regress.

jason43
10-07-2011, 12:23 AM
Some liberals are hard core economic nanny state big government types, others are more civil libertarians. The civil liberties crowd we could reach. The others, no amount of reason or logic will convince.

jason43
10-07-2011, 12:26 AM
Regression through unleashing humanity from the chains of government and corporatism is not regression at all. Regression is trying the Soviet economic model over again because "We're exceptional" and "We can do it better this time around"