Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Why, after all these pages, do you still cling onto the idea that a "progressive" agenda is a good thing?

Because...it's what I believe.

I won't bother explaining since it's always useless...but I can be progressive and believe in Capitalism and Markets.
I am certainly not comfortable with markets being everything, as some of you guys want.

Semi tangent: We got bogged down in econ talk...I consider a progressive agenda the whole plate.
Total gay rights, drug legalization, all the stuff we agree on and ignore
Note Obama never gave any real support for legalizing even weed, and the DADT repeal came from Congress...and even that was pointlessly delayed just for the sake of it.

No Gay Marriage either.
A few non econ points I havn't been happy with.

I thought his handling of BP was fine, (like he could do much). My friend was one of those who felt the government should've seized BP and hold their assets, to make sure the fine can be paid and use the money for cleanup.
See? I'm not the most crazy out there.

manofmystery wrote: Why, after all these pages, do you still cling onto the idea that a "progressive" agenda is a good thing?

JJLehto wrote: I won't bother explaining since it's always useless...but I can be progressive and believe in Capitalism and Markets. I am certainly not comfortable with markets being everything, as some of you guys want.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: I won't bother explaining since it's always useless...but I can be progressive and believe in Capitalism and Markets. I am certainly not comfortable with markets being everything, as some of you guys want. Look you can as progressive as you want, but you can't say this. The two things are just incompatible. You're putting two mutually exclusive things into one whole.  If you mean you believe in a mixed economy, that's still not a tenable position. A mixed economy by definition negates the self correcting aspects necessary for a market to function. In a way, a mixed economy is worse than pure socialism.  It's kind of like this. Capitalism tells people to learn how to swim then pushes them into a lake. Socialism ties someone's arms and legs, throws a lifejacket on them, and pushes them into a lake. A mixed economy ties someone's arms and legs, then pushes them into a lake. And then of course eventually people say, all of these people are drowning, the government should provide lifejackets for them. This is probably a better alternative to people drowning, but of course the proposal to simply remove the ropes is never mentioned.

Metaphors are not the same as arguments... I could compare any economic system to a swimming situation but it dosn't mean a thing unless you explain why.

Henry Plainview wrote: manofmystery wrote: Why, after all these pages, do you still cling onto the idea that a "progressive" agenda is a good thing? Because you haven't convinced him otherwise? I'm confused why you even uttered this question, much less in such an exasperated tone. This may cause an unwanted amount of introspection on your part with regard to the amount of time you've spent arguing, but people's opinions are almost changed through a forum discussion.

True, Pat will have no problem doing so.

This is why I don't bother, pretty sure I've said this before about our totally different foundations.
You guys see Capitalism as totally free and without bounds.

So yeah,  I can see how what I say is impossible.
I personally believe a more moderate form, or mixed economy, is fine. I'm not so black and white is all.
I guess yeah, a mixed economy by its very definition is not pure capitalism, but I don't think it has to be of course.

Besides I still believe most things should be privately owned anyway.
Not sure what else ya want there.

I do know I've said all this before Pat As Anton said, I only contributed to 200+ pages...


Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2011 at 11:37

Yeah, for a bit (just a bit) I honest to god, was thinking you at least exaggerate your views.

Which is why I've always said don't you realistically feel your beliefs are impossible? Maybe less than mine.
At least moderate type capitalist democracies exist.
No where is there a total and utter market driven state.

Even with all the libertarian hype going on, it won't be near what you advocate Pat.
And if anyone tried, the masses will think that person insane.
Do you want a revolution? Or maybe the dictatorship to guide things than wither away with time.


That worked for Lenin! Didn't it??


Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2011 at 11:43

After all, HP hasn't really been one of the thread's most frequent contributors, though we all gladly receive him as this thread is, without a doubt, the best and most entertaining in all PA... 

I think I've mentioned this before, but there have been some alternate ideas floating around in my head.

Like use of micro loaning.
I'd be ok with that replacing a good bit of welfare, (there should still be some of course!)
It's something I would need to really look into and think about but yeah.