This blog is going to be short because it's simply an observation. It is not directed at anyone in specific.
I've noticed of late that there have been a lot of let's say not-progressives on ProgressiveU. I'm seeing a lot of blogs by people talking about "Abortion being against natural law" (written by males, no doubt); and several other opinions that are, shall we say, anti-progressive.
I'm not suggesting that everyone on here share the same viewpoint as me -- although, my egotism would be vastly increased if I thought I should have that power over others -- and I'm not even suggesting that every person on here be liberal. There are some very good progressive conservatives here on ProgU, and elsewhere -- I'll name Barry Goldwater as a progressive conservative, as well as President Eisenhower; both of whom are deceased, which to me says far too much about contemporary conservatives than anything else. No, rather, the issue is that this is a site for progressive ideas. Not liberal ones. Not conservative ones. Progressive. That means moving forward, making progress for humanity.
Imprisoning women in their biological function is not progress. Letting poor people starve is not progress. Disallowing college students from going to the dentist because they neither have insurance nor funds is not progress. Building a fence on our border with Mexico is not progress (in fact, that has been proven by history (East Germany anyone? How about Israel?) to be a bad move). Prohibition is not progress, despite that the two words share the same prefix.
By all means, express your opinions, I'm hardly one to stop you. But consider that you might be more comfortable with your Freeper peers. And also consider that it's terribly short-sighted of you to simply blog here because there's a chance you might win some dough. ProgU is also around to help make progress for Americans and the human race as a whole.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
So progressive means to move forward.
I have some progressive ideas....
1) Let's get some progress on deporting illegals.
2) Let's get some progress on fixing education. School Votures are a good idea.
3) Let's stop wealth redistribution. Marxism is not progressive.
4)Stopping infacide would be progressive.
And I wrote the afore mentioned article. The only reason you would object to a website that everyone does not share your opinions is because your opinions don't hold water.
Hrm... gotta say the ad homeniem isn't progressive either.
Fetuses aren't infants, by the way.
It means against the man not against the opinion.
Yes, I know that. "Your opinions don't hold water" is not a rebuttal but a personal attack. Or at least I have percieved it as such. Besides, there's only room for one condescending bitch who can't spell on this board, and I'm it. :p
At least you know what you are.
Glad we're on the same page on that at least.
Cutting welfare programs is most certainly progressive, because that forces people to network (gather friends and value family) and encourages private charity. Progress is about heading to a state in which people can live without a need for a government, not to be in eternal debt to it (Soviet Union, anyone?)
--Mike
tell that to the kids who survive because of the welfare system.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. --Jimi Hendrix
And the kids who survive in poverty without one?
--Mike
Tell them that they will grow up most likely to be failures because their father was arrested selling drugs to feed them and they will probably have to quit school so that they can eat. Tell them that this is a result of the decisions of their ancestors (and possibly their ancestor's slavemasters) and that the government believes that this ancestry should serve as as great a barrier to social mobility as is legally possible. When they say they would rather not have lived because nothing can improve for them, tell them that their mother was thinking about that possibility, but it was illegal. Then remind them that jail is full of people who don't care about their lives.
To protect the rights of its citizens, a human rights-oriented government needs to protect them from rights-threatening circumstances beyond their personal control. This is the reason that all law exists--crimes are illegal because they infringe upon the rights of people other than the decision makers, and those victims cannot control the problem themselves.
In the case of children, "rights-threatening circumstances beyond their personal control" include everything. Availability of food, shelter, healthcare, education. A lack of any of these deprives the child of their rights as adults.
If you believe that the government should compel pregnant women to have babies they can't take care of on their own, then it makes sense for the government to help take care of those children. Otherwise, the government has just made a law that exacerbates poverty, and kills those children slowly through neglect and starvation.
Moreover, if a government seeks to prevent crime, then combating poverty is a logical step. Most crime exists as a direct result of poverty. Raising children with greater opportunities than their parents can provide can reduce their poverty. The development of a criminal atmosphere doesn't stop because one person goes to jail for a few years. The reasons for crime are still there.
That's an abstraction of social regression.
Living "without a need for government" is a description of the anarchy that would have existed before government was created as a way to enhance the security and prosperity of the population, and as a way of bringing them together for the common good. Family groups already existed but were insufficient, and government was another step forward.
The Soviet Union was an example of government without sufficient civilian participation.
People cannot be "eternally in debt" to a democratic government that derives its power from them. The government repays the debt that it owes the people for their support.
Largely socialized health care, education, and welfare programs with broad civilian participation in the government (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, anyone?) works wonderfully. Those countries have better health and quality of life than America--and few European-based cultures have stronger family values and work ethic than the Finnish culture does.
That is an example of progress.
You have equated longer life span with better quality of life, and that's a bad leap in logic. Just because people are living longer lives and getting free treatment for life-threatening illnesses, conditions, etc. does not mean that the quality of life is better. I cite Canada's socialized medicine system, where the waiting list for a check-up on a minor condition is so long that some people go to the emergency room for a rash.
The only thing that government is good for is keeping behemouth corporations in business with their juicy contracts and beaurocracy. Government does nothing to serve the people that the people couldn't just as easily (and in some cases, more easily) do on their own.
--Mike
I have not equated longer life span to higher quality of life, I have just said the two terms in one sentence, separated by a conjunction.
The United Nations Human development Index, a quality-of-life statistic based not only on life span, but also on educational and economic factors, lists Norway, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Sweden, Canada, and Japan as the seven most livable countries in the world, with the United States as number eight. All of the countries above the United States and most immediately below it have socialized medical care, and most of them have other services socialized as well.
Most of the socialist democracies that I have previously mentioned also beat the US in a poll measuring self-described personal happiness, and most also achieved the same on a similar poll asking instead about life satisfaction.
Yes, all of these positive factors happen to correlate somewhat to
high taxes.
Nonetheless, many of these countries also have
more civil and political liberties,
higher voter turnout for parliamentary or congressional elections and presidential elections (in such cases where presidential elections occur, rather than just parliamentary elections).
That is definitely not simplification to "high life spans" or even "socialized healthcare."
Name a better quality-of-life indicator than those I have mentioned. Whether or not a rich man's rash is treated before a poor man's heart attack? Death from premature illness makes quality of life null for a dead person, but ruins it for those around them far more than a rash ever does.
You cite a situation in which a government has executed social services poorly as evidence that social services cannot succeed, while ignoring the fact that other governments execute these services effectively--proof that these services can succeed (anything that has actually occurred is possible). What problems in Canada's medical system, or Ireland's medical system prove is not that social services don't work, but that they aren't cooked. Healthcare is not improved by doing nothing about it (pulling all programs and letting the nineteenth century come back to bite us in the rear). Healthcare is improved by more healthcare. More clinics and hospitals--actual injuries and illness won't increase just because capacity does, only treatment for them will increase. If healthcare capacity isn't sufficient for everyone in a socialized system, then capacity could be increased to solve the problem. This would actually improve access to healthcare instead of improving its profitability.
As for "behemoth corporations," the reason that the Indusrial-Revolution-era trusts have broken down is because of government regulation on anti-competitive and monopolistic activities. If you'd like to send your kids to work at ten like was necessary in the late 1800s and early 1900s, then we can remove government interference with business.
However, this line of discussion was originally about whether economic anarchy coupled with moral policing is progressive.
Still nothing besides "get over it, ask your mom or church for help" on that front. Not everyone has living relatives, and usually poor people are related to other poor people.
Who said anything about moral policing?
You talk about the trusts of the 19th century and how the government was the factor that dismantled them, but you neglect to investigate what allowed them to form in the first place. Sure, it may have been economic liberalism that allowed them to form, but it was the government that allowed them to flourish. With intellectual property laws and government contracts, the trusts had it made because they could keep both their income and the rights to their product ideas to themselves.
Notice how the rise of trusts in the late 1800s coincided with the establishment of intellectual property laws in 1845.
--Mike
The moral policing thing was an out-of-line response to your earlier use of the term "infanticide" for abortion. I retract my use of the term.
While it's true that poorly-run government encouraged the growth of trusts, it doesn't relate to the question of whether government involvement is bad in principle unless well-run government is unable to fix problems.
The trusts formed because of economic deregulation, and flourished because this deregulation had allowed them to become powerful enough to manipulate the government into serving their interests--the interests of "business."
However, even without the intellectual property laws, large trusts were the most viable economic competitors in an industrial economy. They would have made products cheaper and faster than smaller companies and would have continued to improve efficiency by expanding. Whether they lost a tenth of their profits to short-lived knockoff brands wouldn't have made a huge difference. This expansion would still have given them great leverage to screw the general populace over.
Only when the people began voting pro-labor (for "progressive" candidates), and a government less interested in economic prosperity or simple protectionism than in the real welfare of its citizens was put in place, did the problem of industrial monopolies screwing with employees improve.
This is an example of a change from old, bad laws and regulations to new, good laws and regulations improving the general welfare progressively, rather than just the repeal of laws setting the public welfare back for another coin-flip, regressively.
Bullshit. The trusts formed because the laws had just been changed to protect them so much more. I refer to intellectual property laws which allowed businesses to corner the market on a certain product by buying (key point here is that you must have money in order to have a protected idea) rights to it.
And how did they get there and stay there? From a government that wasn't the voice of the people. But why do you need the government, if you already have a voice of the people? I'm not talking about repealing laws (although that's a good start); I'm talking about repealing government. Yes, I did just say repealing government. It's late.
--Mike
"Bullshit" isn't just anything that's untrue, it's rhetoric unconcerned with truth and intended to misrepresent the intent of the speaker in saying it. I'm quite concerned with the truth.
"The trusts formed because the laws had just been changed to protect them so much more."
In order to protect something, it must exist. You earlier acknowledged that the trusts existed before the laws.
If you mean to tell me that vertical buyouts don't streamline production and starve competitors, and that horizontal buyouts don't limit competition, then you're right--it is late.
What enforceable "voice of the people" do you speak of?
How do you propose the people enforce their will without government and law? Lynch mobs?
As I understand it, you didn't need money in order to have a protected idea if you came up with it yourself, you could be bought out and then someone else would own your patent because you sold it. That part I'm less certain on.
Well, I see you've been reading Henry Frankfurt...
It costs money to register an idea with the patent or copyright office.
I'd like to digress slightly and discuss the concept of ownership. Ownership is not up to the person who owns something, it's up to everyone else to recognize that ownership.
When you have a government that recognizes ownership and enforces it through force, there's no means of stopping a behemouth corporation from thriving in a liberal (classically liberal) economy. However, without government, there is nothing stopping competition. IP laws inhibit competition because they award rights to ideas to individuals (yes, companies are individuals in the eyes of the law) rather than allowing those with means of production to make a product, regardless of who came up with it. Isn't that competition? Selling the most of your product because it is the best, not because you have exclusive rights to it.
As for lynch mobs, I actually think that would be a reasonable (though extreme) means of keeping business in check. Laws or not, people still have a sense of morals, so the injustices would have to mount to a certain level before people will compromise their morals for a greater good.
--Mike
You're right that it costs money to register with the patent office. More than I have. Copyrights, on the other hand, don't actually need to be registered (though they can be). All that you need is proof that you wrote something first.
I already agree that intellectual property laws are anti-competitive and harmful.
However, they are also required in some form by the Constitution. Congress is supposed to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This tells me, though, that protection of ideas is a constitutional right and that it is unconstitutional for the government to sell it.
I wouldn't have any problem with the repeal of that clause, though.
However, even without protection of ideas, people who already have money can afford expensive production facilities and vertical mergers to streamline production, giving them an advantage that only increases with time. People who already have money can also buy out competitors horizontally to limit competition. That is how behemoth corporations become true behemoths.
It's true that in areas like internet publishing and software, where production and distribution are very inexpensive and can be done on an amateur's freetime, copyright laws are the glue that binds large corporations together. Open source software is growing and piracy is fast being legitimized, and this may one day dispense with software monopolies regardless of copyright laws (well I guess that "software monopoly" ought to be singular...).
However, try to apply this to the production of airplanes--not too many small companies there. Or pretty much anything sold at Wal-Mart. Small companies exist, but they're miniature and sell at high prices--they can't bully producers like Wal-Mart can.
"Laws or not, people still have a sense of morals, so the injustices would have to mount to a certain level before people will compromise their morals for a greater good."
My, how progressive. Wait on problems until someone blows up a building. Well okay, so there was 9/11, but in countries with weak governments 9/11 is every day. Let's not count terrorism as a legitimate "voice of the people" for the purposes of this discussion. Another reason I like government is stability. Police are nice to have around.
The other way that government upholds behemouth corporations (I like that phrase) is through their contracts. With lobbyists and various public works programs, the government will always side with the big conglomerates because, to put it tersely, it's easy.
I'm not saying that acts of violent demonstration (I differentiate from terrorism because the intent is not necessarily fear) should or would be the ultimate means of a popular voice. Far from it. I'm saying that were there no government, the option would be open, so companies (behemouth corporations) would be more inclined to listen to the people's concerns, and if there were a violent demonstration, they'd know that they weren't listening and something would have to be fixed, lest they see a drop in their revenues as a result.
I wish the current admin had taken that approach.
--Mike
a) Revenues in deer hides? Without government there is no abstract currency.
b) No government means no repercussions if the companies decide to "take care" of the situation through their own violent means. They have more resources than villagers with pitchforks, and could easily take down a demonstration. When money is the only power, an effective dictatorship of the rich corporation is the inevitable result a la Final Fantasy Seven. One unscrupulous rich person with no laws is more dangerous than a thousand poor people with laws.
c) Violent demonstrations don't just hurt companies, they devastate neighborhoods--neighborhoods not necessarily filled with rich people. What do big companies care? Their kids are safe in a gated community somewhere.
a) Why not? Without government, currency might actually be based on something material again (if you weren't aware, the US Dollar doesn't have a representational value to anything physical anymore). Private banks would proliferate their own currency, sort of like coupons worth some good (gold, diamond, silver, whatever) that the bank actually has.
b) I've been working on this one for a while and haven't really come up with a promising solution. The best I could come up with is that a company like that wouldn't last long because the corporate greed would likely cause the company to expand (creating both a general weakening of the corporate stranglehold and a significant increase in resistance) or overcharge (causing some sort of inflation or market stagnation that would turn the company belly-up). It also goes back to the first question, because people could just as easily ignore the currency because there's nothing official about it.
c) I guess "violent demonstration" wasn't the best term because it gives the connotation of protest. I was thinking more along the lines of arson, assassination, etc. Military police are still people, so they can only be bought to do so much.
--Mike
"Private banks would proliferate their own currency, sort of like coupons worth some good (gold, diamond, silver, whatever) that the bank actually has."
That's how it used to be. Currency was worthless when the banks failed, and economic downturns were exacerbated by the loss of the assets of even the most responsible investors. This also wouldn't fit with a modern, fast-as-sound economy where assets are nominally traded several times a day, sometimes across the world. The speed of the goods transfers wouldn't keep up with the speed of the currency transfers. It's not true that money isn't backed by anything material. It isn't backed up by reserves of resources, but by the value of the economy of the issuing country. Instead of representing a specific amount of gold, it abstracts the idea of goods and services, which allows for fast transactions. An information-age economy demands abstract currency, which can only be supported by an organization with the scope of a strong government to enforce it.
"the corporate greed would likely cause the company to expand (creating both a general weakening of the corporate stranglehold and a significant increase in resistance) or overcharge (causing some sort of inflation or market stagnation that would turn the company belly-up)."
This a) depends on a businessman not knowing how to make money and b) turns the entire economy belly-up, not just the company. A is a bad gamble in the long term. B is a disaster for society, yet you're arguing that anarchy is good for society.
"I was thinking more along the lines of arson, assassination, etc. Military police are still people, so they can only be bought to do so much."
So a strong cycle of economic collapse punctuated by perpetual outbursts of guerilla warfare and murder (if we're lucky and only poor businessmen run successful companies) is an ideal social model?
I don't think in terms of ideals. I work on the basis of principle. I believe that people should be free to do what they want. I think people are able to keep themselves well taken care of if they're forced to.
--Mike
Well then our positions are based on different assumptions rather than different analysis (although when I said ideal, I didn't mean "ideal" like perfect and without conflict, I meant "best possible option"). If I believed that people weren't inherently inclined to harmful behavior, I'd agree with you. I've seen no evidence that people removed from law and order will take care of themselves and leave others alone. Which leads me to a new question: what would realistically prevent another autocratic government springing up out of the wealth of free economics coupled with industrial/information technology?
Lack of support.
--Mike
Keywords to address: "wealth" and "autocratic." Support doesn't have to be broad-based.
It does if it wants to establish legitimacy...
--Mike
Oppression doesn't require legitimacy. Saddam Hussein had minority support, and it took a crusading superpower to get rid of him.
He also had a military, the recognition of external political powers, and he didn't get there on his own in any respect.
--Mike
The recognition of external political powers was only useful because if he didn't have it, they'd screw him. In an anarchy there wouldn't be any external powers to screw him.
The military worked for him largely because he paid them--a wealthy corporate business owner has the resources to fund a military. it's true that he was part of a larger revolutionary movement, but that wouldn't be necessary with lots of money and nothing to revolt against.
Mmm, I don't think you know your history very well. The United States put him into power. His legitimacy was derived primarily from his sovereignty as recognized by foreign states. But how about another example.
Karzaid in Afghanistan (whom we essentially put into power and who has no legitimacy) is only the leader of Afghanistan because the UN recognizes him as such. Otherwise he has no power.
--Mike
90+% of people who are on welfare are children. How is killing children progressive?
I don't know about you, but I just like killing children. That's part of why I'm for abortion.
--Mike
Hi. I'm an active Freeper. (Just google my user name, you'll see.) The only reason I'm here is because some interesting discussion goes on, and for some odd reason, Google News searches pick up the headlines. I have live bookmarks for a lot of subjects I'm interested in, including any time Free Republic mades headlines. That's how I happened on your post.
I'm not here to win any money. I didn't even know you could. I just enjoy putting forth ideas, and defending the conservative cause, with facts and logic.
Your point about mostly males not supporting abortion, for instance. This point only works so far as it goes, because lots of women oppose abortion, so you'll have to come up with an argument for them.
But the original point (essentially, "men can't have an opinion on abortion because they don't have to have a baby") is invalid. Otherwise, I could export the same logic about the death penalty, and say you cannot have any opinion on the death penalty until someone kills a relative of yours.
If you look at our history, we've been getting "progressively" worse at the same time as "progressively" better. There's a balance to be struck, but there's nothing "progressive" about liberal ideas of governmental control, abortions without consent, gun confiscation, isolationism, moral relativism, etc.
-Dave
Well now, Ransom and Rachel seem like the PERFECT COUPLE. Can we get a justice of the peace to blog here? Kill the duck/goose here and now, yes? A fetus IS an infant, and has BRAINWAVES by it's second week of growth.
Keep it up and I just might have to tolcock ya in the yarbles, if ya had any yarbles. Eunuch jelly, thou.
Besides, I like bitches, yes? Let's play nice, eh Ransom? Let's not destroy any more of their precious brain cells, righty right? They don't have too many as it is. Not a lot going on in the clocky-wocky, yes? But we can pity them. We DO pity them, am I right am I right?
If a fetus is not an infant, then could somebody please tell me what "it" is?
It's a fetus.
It doesn't even have a brain by the second week of growth...
--Mike
The late great Bill Hicks had the best line on the anti-abortion set: instead of campaigning for unborn fetuses to be born into a world that doesn't want them, why don't you go and adopt a child that's already born into a world that doesn't want them? There are millions to choose from.
If life is so important to anti-abortionists, and they are in fact 'prolife' (which is a self-agrandizing title that makes me want to kill), then how come so few adopt suffering and abused children, and how come so many of them will support a war at the drop of a hat? Terrorists have lives too, surely to kill a terrorist goes against the supposed natural law which is brought up in defence of the unborn fetus, no? I mean, a terrorist definitely has brainwaves.
That aside, talking in Clockwork Orange slang is just plain gay, I'm actually embarassed for you fella, you make me cringe.
I already tried that argument, dude, it doesn't work; and I don't understand why. So weird.
It doesn't work because adopting and caring for abused and unwanted children is too much like hard work. Why bother, when you can make it look like you give a shit without really having to put your money where your mouth is.
That's the reason they don't do it and are selfish and hypocritical.
However, the reason the argument doesn't work in a discussion of the abortion issue is that it's an ad hominem appeal.
Instead of adopting or helping other families adopt, why does PETA crusade against horse slaughtering houses?
They are probably pro-abortion, because chances are most of the fetuses will grow into meat eating babies....
Sorry PETA, I couldn't resist.
PETA kinda sucks any way. They've got a bad name amoung activist groups. Them and ELF (earth liberation front), who burn down houses and do more harm to the earth than they do good. PETA is kind of the same way.
Bloody wankers don't give a toss about human beings, but you eat a hamburger in front of them and they'll tear you to bits! I do enjoy the discourse about adoption rather than conception, since there already plenty of little bundles of joy (not to mention the ungodly number of pre-teen and teenage orphans that are shuttled from foster home to foster home because they aren't as cute as toddlers) available, and we dont' really need any more. It's not like the human race is in danger of extinction. (Assuming we don't go the great radioactive thing any time soon.)
Ransom is a fool and only interested in his own opinions. If you can imagine a gargantuan orafice with fingers for typing, you've pretty much got him pegged.
Cheers Rachel m'girl,
-His Royal Dude-ness
Do you find it interesting that a pregnant woman who is planning to keep her baby will say things like: "what color should we paint the Baby's room?" or "I felt the Baby kick" and when returning from an ultrasound is excited to show the little Polaroid of her "Baby".
The ONLY time we outside the medical field refer to the growing infant in the womb as a "Fetus" is when talking about abortion. Easier, I guess, to remove the human aspect of the child when you are about to snuff their life I guess. Sounds progressively more and more like brainwashing to me....
Geez, why are we back on this abortion thing anyway?
Why is that interesting? She is planning for the future.
In the same way, you don't hear women asking their husbands if they'd like to eat raw hamburger meat, whole onions, and catsup for dinner, but rather, if they'd like to have meatloaf. It isn't meatloaf yet, but that is what it will be if that's what they want.
You also don't give someone a packet of rose seeds and say, "Happy Anniversary."
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. --Jimi Hendrix
Word.
-His Royal Dude-ness
You're very right. "Progressive values" are not conducive to much of the conservative agenda, and yet this site seems to be attracting more conservatives each second.
Example...the highest-rated post on PU right now appears to be about why almost all abortions are for "selfish" reasons and should be illegal.
Perhaps there should be a collective "what the hell???" from progressive bloggers to fix the problem.
Except...
"I'm seeing a lot of blogs by people talking about "Abortion being against natural law" (written by males, no doubt);"
My mommy cried when she found out I was pro choice.
I think my mom's a woman...
Polls show very similar views on the issue of abortion for men and women, with differences almost always within statistical margins of error and going both ways.
But that's really not what you were focusing on.
Your point is dead on.