Progressivism

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Not surprisingly I suppose, for a site dedicated to a pastime that's been outlawed, the classical liberal, libertarian, individual's rights and minimalist government camps have gotten a word in edgewise on BL for as long as I've been here. Although I'm all for amending drug laws, including getting rid of a whole lot of them, I've always been the kind of left-leaner that has supported egalitarian-minded government intervention, and think that the exhaust fumes that arise from this sort of arrangement are preferable to those in which profiteers can do as they please, and the government by and large doesn't do jack for citizens, and doesn't really regulate or monitor much.

As for me, I'm for whatever policies actually work at keeping inequalities in life quality as minimal as they possibly can get. Overall happy, peaceful, stable societies exist in places where there are no yawning discrepancies in what resources those at the top and those at the bottom have at their disposal. Right-wing conservatism never aimed to deliver equality. Does libertarianism / classical liberalism?

Libertarianism never sold me because it always struck me that most people have a government-shaped hole in their minds. More precisely, there's a strong and not-so-dwindling DEMAND for a government that provides more than the basic basics like military defense. As sensible and liberating as classical liberalism is on paper, the fact remains that most people prefer to leave the management of a number of big items in their lives to a central authority that at least keeps up some ideal (or for the cynical, pretense) of neutrality toward moneyed interests. As the US is learning with health insurance, some things are just better NOT privately owned and given free rein. I can see libertarianism being the obvious choice for someone who has always been raised to do for themselves, and has achieved a high degree of successful self-reliance. But I don't think you'll sell the many people whose butts have been saved by some sort of government policy or intervention on the merits of this political camp.

Moreover, I can think of historical examples of governments that have provided a vast array of public services in a way that was, for an extended period of time, efficient and well tailored to the needs and demands of the populace. And I think in most cases, these coincided with times when resources were well managed and distributed fairly evenly. I don't think it's a utopian or unattainable goal at all. We just need to get better at learning how to sustain it once we get it going.

Does anyone else here favor a progressive, left-leaning 'compassionate intervention' model of government in relation to society? If so, who are some writers or scholars who have written recently in defense of this view, that I should check out?

 

[B9]

Left leaning compassion can be as restrictive & cloying as out & out capitalism. Lets never forget that ALL these modes of government are simply plays for power for people who believe their preferred system is "right". Personally i'd be all for a loosely based anarchistic type set up - the very nature of which means it cannot compete against the structuralist government types which is everyone BUT the anarchists.
Rightwingness = individualism in many ways
Leftwingedness = Borgness in many ways.



Woe to me & about 3 others

 

[Vader]

I've got no problem with people collectively deciding to give authority over the provision of services to a central authority. I just don't see why I should be forced to part of this collective scheme. Coercive authority undermines the autonomy that is a prerequisite for morality. What you see as "compassionate intervention", I view as paternalism.

 

[lollerskater]

Right-wing conservatism never aimed to deliver equality.

Right-wingers ended slavery and used military action to forcibly integrate schools. Conservatism and equality are not mutually exclusive.

Any ideology that is completely uncompromising to the necessities of a society, such as ignoring the needs of having a military or paying (some) taxes, is going to restrict independance by restricting freedom.

Liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are all compatable with personal freedom in many ways. I am a conservative libertarian (low taxes, minimal govt, states' rights, no legislating morality) and agree with much of what B9 said.

 

[yougene]

In principle I'm with you.

The problem with government is it's slow to adapt(and therefore prone to decay), and easy to compromise.
For example, all these healthcare regulations that were meant to help consumers.

Moreover, I can think of historical examples of governments that have provided a vast array of public services in a way that was, for an extended period of time, efficient and well tailored to the needs and demands of the populace. And I think in most cases, these coincided with times when resources were well managed and distributed fairly evenly. I don't think it's a utopian or unattainable goal at all. We just need to get better at learning how to sustain it once we get it going.

I think it's a challenging goal, and one of our weakest links.
Institutions will decay over time. They become inefficient, corrupt, and eventually they fail.

That's why the market is so important. It provides a self-organizing process of growth and decay.

 

[Philoscybin]

Not surprisingly I suppose, for a site dedicated to a pastime that's been outlawed, the classical liberal, libertarian, individual's rights and minimalist government camps have gotten a word in edgewise on BL for as long as I've been here. Although I'm all for amending drug laws, including getting rid of a whole lot of them, I've always been the kind of left-leaner that has supported egalitarian-minded government intervention, and think that the exhaust fumes that arise from this sort of arrangement are preferable to those in which profiteers can do as they please, and the government by and large doesn't do jack for citizens, and doesn't really regulate or monitor much.

As for me, I'm for whatever policies actually work at keeping inequalities in life quality as minimal as they possibly can get. Overall happy, peaceful, stable societies exist in places where there are no yawning discrepancies in what resources those at the top and those at the bottom have at their disposal. Right-wing conservatism never aimed to deliver equality. Does libertarianism / classical liberalism?

Libertarianism never sold me because it always struck me that most people have a government-shaped hole in their minds. More precisely, there's a strong and not-so-dwindling DEMAND for a government that provides more than the basic basics like military defense. As sensible and liberating as classical liberalism is on paper, the fact remains that most people prefer to leave the management of a number of big items in their lives to a central authority that at least keeps up some ideal (or for the cynical, pretense) of neutrality toward moneyed interests. As the US is learning with health insurance, some things are just better NOT privately owned and given free rein. I can see libertarianism being the obvious choice for someone who has always been raised to do for themselves, and has achieved a high degree of successful self-reliance. But I don't think you'll sell the many people whose butts have been saved by some sort of government policy or intervention on the merits of this political camp.

Moreover, I can think of historical examples of governments that have provided a vast array of public services in a way that was, for an extended period of time, efficient and well tailored to the needs and demands of the populace. And I think in most cases, these coincided with times when resources were well managed and distributed fairly evenly. I don't think it's a utopian or unattainable goal at all. We just need to get better at learning how to sustain it once we get it going.

Does anyone else here favor a progressive, left-leaning 'compassionate intervention' model of government in relation to society? If so, who are some writers or scholars who have written recently in defense of this view, that I should check out?

A libertarian/right-wing government model is just as much, if not more, aimed towards equality than a progressive/leftist model, as they promote both social and economic liberties to pursue happiness and financial prosperity which inadvertently benefits society- offering more jobs, quality services, etc. I disagree with the progressive model because it inhibits man from living to his fullest potential and settling or compromising his principles and abilities just for the sake of those who are less able. Man holds no moral responsibility for feeding and clothing other men. He is only accountable first and foremost to himself. Progressivism is completely irrational and a form of compassionate-fascism that tells the public what is right from wrong.

 

[lollerskater]

compassionate-fascism

Wow, that totally sums it up. Did you come up with that phrase?

 

[Putingrad]

Right there with ya, MyDoors.

After flirting for many years with strains of the far left, today I consider myself more or less a democratic socialist (more of a European term I suppose, but largely synonymous with progressivism).

I feel that free market libertarianism is sociopathic. It is simply a philosophy of trying to justify and intellectualize what really amounts to simple greed. Of course we can all agree that morality in some universal truth sense does not exist, but that does not mean that there is not an archetypal sense of morality due to our being social creatures, with a few basic points that nearly everyone agrees with because they feel it.

There is no atomized speration of individuals as classical liberalism/libertarianism/etc. would have you believe. People are linked to one another through a variety of cultural, geographical, social, emotional, and biological forces. People achieve their highest potential when acting in concert with others and embracing the simple fact that we are social animals. No man is an island, and Zarathustra and John Galt have no parallels outside of fiction.

Therefore, seeing as how we've come to this point in the evolution of civilization of having nearly 7 billion people, all of which are organized under the auspices of some 200 different nation-states, I conclude that for the time being these nation-states (which are not going to disappear overnight and usher in the utopia, despite mine and everyone else's fantasy) should govern in a way that seeks to minimize the gaps in society and create an acceptable and minimal-within-reason level of inequality. Everyone deserves to have a solid platform to stand on from which they can go about achieving their potential. Historical inequalities and injustices deserve to be rectified by governments, those who dispute this I have more often than not found hail from an identity of privilege themselves.

 

[ebola?]

There is no atomized speration of individuals as classical liberalism/libertarianism/etc. would have you believe. People are linked to one another through a variety of cultural, geographical, social, emotional, and biological forces. People achieve their highest potential when acting in concert with others and embracing the simple fact that we are social animals. No man is an island, and Zarathustra and John Galt have no parallels outside of fiction.

This. Forgetting so binds oppositionally how we conceive of freedom and collective justice, underpinning the oversimplification of politics conceived along a single dimension.

ebola

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Left leaning compassion can be as restrictive & cloying as out & out capitalism. Lets never forget that ALL these modes of government are simply plays for power for people who believe their preferred system is "right". Personally i'd be all for a loosely based anarchistic type set up - the very nature of which means it cannot compete against the structuralist government types which is everyone BUT the anarchists.

Concur. I won't deny that there are, and have always been, governing bodies with a left-leaning slant that have committed some real blunders in the name of the people's best interest. That's why any such government ought to make quality education a top priority, and encourage all of its brightest citizens with an interest in public policy planning to offer their input.

I don't mean to imply that a more top-down planned society and economy is foolproof. But if the entire point of society is all individuals having all their needs met efficiently, I think the evidence suggests that this is the best sort of setup we've got for reaching this goal, at least in the medium-term.

I've got no problem with people collectively deciding to give authority over the provision of services to a central authority. I just don't see why I should be forced to part of this collective scheme. Coercive authority undermines the autonomy that is a prerequisite for morality. What you see as "compassionate intervention", I view as paternalism.

You make a very astute point, and I think this is the sticking point a lot of classical liberals have with progressivism and socialism: to what extent may I opt out of the system?

On a very superficial level, this merits no discussion at all: OF COURSE you may opt out. It's kind of like being at a meeting of a small group, where decisions are being made collectively that I oppose vehemently. Sooner or later I'm bound to be told that I'm free to leave at any time, and may form my own group if I wish.

This is a simple matter if we're talking about a small group with limited range -- a ladies' book club or a hunter gatherer clan, for example. But what if there's nowhere to run? And what if it is very much against the best interests of the group you want to leave, to let you form a different group that's completely autonomous from the original group's authority? This is where the debate gets thorny, and discussions of individual freedom can get philosophical.

Suppose I live in the People's Republic of Blahblahblah. I don't like the job the Party Chairman has chosen for me, and I think the food in the communal dining halls pales in comparison to my own cooking. So I sign a release form at a remarkably understanding government office, essentially cutting me loose. I'm now free to peddle my trade as I see fit, and can cook all my own meals, in exchange for relinquishing privileges such as use of public hospitals and schools. It's my choice and my life to live, right? But what about my children? If I raise them after signing this form, they'll grow up with a mindset that's inherently peripheral to the larger system around them, that most people buy into. They'll have a very hard time buying into the system if they so choose, since they're not used to it and weren't raised with it. There's no guarantee they'll have the educational chops to apply for a government-issued job, and no guarantee they'll be in good enough health to work one, since they've been denied public schooling and healthcare, in the wake of MY CHOICE. They'll have a very hard time socializing with other kids, since their experience of childhood was so different. Is this fair to them? No. Is this the best use of society's resources to best help all? No.

Ah, you'll say then, but certainly SOME things have to be publicly provided and available to all in any GOOD society; education and healthcare are human rights, not privileges. But then where do you draw the line? I can make a good argument for why letting everyone, taxpayer and Party Member or not, use public roads, is not only the compassionate thing to do, but utilitarian as well. But then what if only a small percentage of people are willing to shoulder the cost of keeping public roads up? The roads will deteriorate in no time, because there's no way to ensure that only those paying in are cashing out.

Yerg, I'm in full agreement with you that you should be allowed to live your life the way you choose, without having to take your cues from a central organizing body, if you so choose. But then the question becomes, what of the impact you doing this will undeniably have on everyone else, now that you have no more frontier to go settle on?

A libertarian/right-wing government model is just as much, if not more, aimed towards equality than a progressive/leftist model, as they promote both social and economic liberties to pursue happiness and financial prosperity which inadvertently benefits society- offering more jobs, quality services, etc.

'Aimed' was the wrong choice of words on my part.

I'll grant you that a right-wing governed society, if stable and abounding in resources, is capable of quite an economic, intellectual, and technological flowering, since innovators are not hampered any step of the way. But this needs to be balanced with the cost, namely, with the fact that such a system will have a lot of losers as well as a lot of winners. I find it a bit callous and backward to just say, 'let the losers lose'. What if someone not competitive enough to make it in a cutthroat economy has something great to contribute to the greater good, but can't, because he's too busy just trying to keep his head above water? And again, won't somebody think of the children? Does a child deserve to fail just because his parents did?

I disagree with the progressive model because it inhibits man from living to his fullest potential and settling or compromising his principles and abilities just for the sake of those who are less able. Man holds no moral responsibility for feeding and clothing other men. He is only accountable first and foremost to himself.

This is patently false to me. I am morally accountable to the many MANY people in this world without whose generous help I wouldn't be where I am today. Nobody does it all by themselves. I am strong in many ways. But I am also inherently very, very weak. The list of things I am not able to do for myself, but might one day need, would be quite long. Individualism is great -- it's one of the jewels of Western culture, I daresay. But there's no need to take it to extreme ends and forget that each of us is undeniably INTERdependent. Once we've admitted that:
A) each person has something valuable to contribute to the greater whole, and
B) each person relies on interpersonal interdependence to meet his/her needs and wants in life,
then it makes perfect sense to me that a smart society will pool its resources to provide those things collectively deemed necessary for all functioning members.

Progressivism is completely irrational and a form of compassionate-fascism that tells the public what is right from wrong.

Who would you rather the general public take their cues from, when deciding how to treat fellow citizens?

 

[lollerskater]

Who would you rather the general public take their cues from, when deciding how to treat fellow citizens?

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the people are incapable of knowing how to treat others or live their lives without a government or religion dictating rules to them. Some of history's biggest mistakes stem from a small group deciding that they know what's best for everyone else and acting to enforce their ideological ideals.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the people are incapable of knowing how to treat others or live their lives without a government or religion dictating rules to them. Some of history's biggest mistakes stem from a small group deciding that they know what's best for everyone else and acting to enforce their ideological ideals.

It's not a question of knowing how to treat others or live one's life. It's a question of putting these principles into practice in the form of group projects. That takes focused coordination of effort, and I'm not convinced that anything other than a de facto government is capable of coordinating and facilitating a whole lot of society-wide projects undertaken for the public good.

Yes, some of history's biggest mistakes have boiled down to foolishness of leaders leading to widespread suffering of followers. But it's not like societies without a strong central authority are infallible either. History is also rife with examples of peoples whose downfall -- to forces within and especially to forces without -- had directly to do with disunity, factionalism, and excessive liberties taken in local areas, all because of a weak or absent central authority which was powerless to stem any of these problems.

 

[L2R]

absolut vodka intoxicates absolutly
or something

 

[lollerskater]

It's not a question of knowing how to treat others or live one's life. It's a question of putting these principles into practice in the form of group projects. That takes focused coordination of effort, and I'm not convinced that anything other than a de facto government is capable of coordinating and facilitating a whole lot of society-wide projects undertaken for the public good.

Yes, some of history's biggest mistakes have boiled down to foolishness of leaders leading to widespread suffering of followers. But it's not like societies without a strong central authority are infallible either. History is also rife with examples of peoples whose downfall -- to forces within and especially to forces without -- had directly to do with disunity, factionalism, and excessive liberties taken in local areas, all because of a weak or absent central authority which was powerless to stem any of these problems.

This is the same argument behind drug prohibition.

 

[Putingrad]

Are we discussing drug prohibition? No, we're discussing the merits or lack there of regarding progressivism as a political philosophy. It's a fallacy to say that because a similar argument is made against something, that it is thus not reasonable to make for a completely different point.

Because someone supports a government-coordinated 'levelling' of society does not mean they're behind the infringing upon of every parcel of human behavior and choice.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Exactly. Thank you.

To me, the answer to the problem of governments and drug use is to use the mechanisms of government to work in our (drug users') favor, and lobbying for more sensible policy. The answer is not to do away with most of government and its machinations altogether.

As far as I'm concerned, having to hide my drug use is a small price to pay for living in a place that has effective rule of law, decent public facilities, and all the other non-minimal benefits a strong government brings.

To get me to endorse libertarianism, you'd have to convince me that when implemented, it ACTUALLY DELIVERS a measurably better quality of life for a much greater fraction of the citizenry, than any competing system of national political organization, while producing fewer undesirable side effects.

Places with minimalist national governments but strong jurisdictional governments don't count. (I'm not thinking about federal republics, I'm talking more places like the United Arab Emirates)

 

[lollerskater]

Are we discussing drug prohibition? No, we're discussing the merits or lack there of regarding progressivism as a political philosophy. It's a fallacy to say that because a similar argument is made against something, that it is thus not reasonable to make for a completely different point.

Because someone supports a government-coordinated 'levelling' of society does not mean they're behind the infringing upon of every parcel of human behavior and choice.

I didn't say they were comparable topics or even that he didn't have a point; in fact I specificly didn't say those things because I do think he has a legit point (I just happen to disagree).

All I said it was that it was the same argument. You're taking an off-hand comment (made only to point out irony) waaaaaay too seriously.

 

[Jabberwocky]

*Bump* for prune--- plus

I have a tendency to see raw free market capitalism as a proposition that sink or swim is essentially fair without recognizing that some people are wearing life jackets and others concrete overshoes.

Attempts to make things fair may often be ineffective, counter-productive, or an additional unfairness, but libertarians who call sink or swim inherently fair are inherently dishonest on some level. "Nothing more fair can be achieved by intervention" I might accept at times but I doubt even that.

 

[qwe]

Are we discussing drug prohibition? No

it's quite relevant... read first paragraph of OP

 

[Bardeaux]

Right-wingers ended slavery

How do you figure? Lincoln gave out federal grants all over the place, for schools and railways ect. He also enacted the first income tax in 1861, all of which was opposed by southern Democrats. He created a system of national banks, created the Department of Agriculture, and put into place a national currency.

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
-Abraham Lincoln