• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Progressives are always right...

fullflavormenthol said:
Oh whatever. Okay lets put the blacks back on the plantation and women back in the kitchen, because it will take an implant to change things. Oh and lets privatize the national parks, and lets allow one person to control an entire industry. Why? Because a few complete morons on this thread said it isn't possible to do otherwise.

I know one progressive ideal that failed...education.
Click to expand...
Which just goes to show that conservatives are right about at least one thing: Even when it comes to something as good, as wonderful as education, no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. The best we can hope for is to keep it in check.
 
theprestige said:
Which just goes to show that conservatives are right about at least one thing: Even when it comes to something as good, as wonderful as education, no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. The best we can hope for is to keep it in check.
Click to expand...

Women have the vote and can own property, and if a husband rapes his wife he can be charged with rape. This is all due to progressives, but no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. These sorts of reforms merely keep it in check, and what good is that?

People are no longer legally kept as slaves, and people who keep others as slaves are prosecuted. This is all due to progressives, but no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. These sorts of reforms merely keep it in check, and what good is that?

Homosexuals can be homosexual without fearing prosecution, and people who physically attack homosexuals for being homosexuals are prosecuted. This is all due to progressives, but no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. These sorts of reforms merely keep it in check, and what good is that?

Progressives (the idiots!) think that possibly society could be improved even further, and that the current state of Australia, the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and so on is not the absolute pinnacle of societal development. What they don't realise is that no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. Future reforms would merely keep it in check, and what good is that?

I think fundamentally these progressives just don't understand the correct, non-evidence-based world view. They think just because progressivism has historically changed society for the better, that it has historically changed society for the better. I don't know what kind of "logic" you call that! Then they compound this error by assuming that just because it has changed society for the better in the past on some occasions, it might change society for the better in the future too!

It really does show how ignorant these people are.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
I know one progressive ideal that failed...education.
Click to expand...

And yet the overall average education level of the population is still significantly higher than it was 150 years ago.

I'm continually amused at how "not perfect" somehow equals "failed" when it comes to political discussions. Were that a real measure of success or failure then pretty much the entirety of the United States history, and pretty much the entirety of human civilization, is one big, stinking failure piled on top of failure, in a nice candy shell of failure.
 
bynmdsue said:
So they're sometimes right.But what about always?
Click to expand...

If we ever managed to identify any subset of humanity as infallible, that would be awesome. We could just do whatever they said and life would be perfect.

Until then we'll have to settle for people who are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I don't think we can even say with confidence that progressives are "usually" right: to do that we'd have to have some kind of representative sample of progressive policies and determine what percentage of that sample was "right", what percentage was "wrong" and what percentage was "dunno, that policy never got implemented so we never found out whether it's right or wrong".
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Women have the vote and can own property, and if a husband rapes his wife he can be charged with rape. This is all due to progressives, but no mandatory government program will ever improve human nature. These sorts of reforms merely keep it in check, and what good is that?

etc.
Click to expand...
A lot of good, actually.

On the other hand, progressives have done a lot of harm, too, by insisting on forcing their idea of "good" on people.

There's a reason Marxism-Leninism keeps coming up in this conversation, you know... or maybe it's that you don't know? Maybe you are unaware of the historical record of atrocities committed by progressives in the name of improving human nature, by force if necessary?

It's not that I think progressives are always wrong, any more than I think conservatives are always against social change. (I'm a conservative. I'm not always against social change. Q.E.D. So give it a rest, already. Conservatives aren't even the topic of this thread.)

"... by force if necessary." And this is where I think progressives are most wrong, most often. Even when the idea is right, progressive implementation often tends towards statism, totalitarianism, (dare I say) fascism.

Witness Thomas Friedman, who periodically laments that the United States can't become China for a day, just long enough to take advantage of the Chinese government's ability to force Thomas Friedman's good ideas on all those Americans who can't be trusted to choose them of their own free will.

It's one thing for progressives to influence a democracy to freely embrace and enforce civil rights.

It's another thing entirely for progressives to wish they could impose environmental activism or economic reform by gunpoint and bootheel. And history has given us a clear record of what happens to people when progressives of this ilk get their wish.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
A lot of good, actually.

On the other hand, progressives have done a lot of harm, too, by insisting on forcing their idea of "good" on people.

There's a reason Marxism-Leninism keeps coming up in this conversation, you know... or maybe it's that you don't know? Maybe you are unaware of the historical record of atrocities committed by progressives in the name of improving human nature, by force if necessary?

It's not that I think progressives are always wrong, any more than I think conservatives are always against social change. (I'm a conservative. I'm not always against social change. Q.E.D. So give it a rest, already. Conservatives aren't even the topic of this thread.)

"... by force if necessary." And this is where I think progressives are most wrong, most often. Even when the idea is right, progressive implementation often tends towards statism, totalitarianism, (dare I say) fascism.

Witness Thomas Friedman, who periodically laments that the United States can't become China for a day, just long enough to take advantage of the Chinese government's ability to force Thomas Friedman's good ideas on all those Americans who can't be trusted to choose them of their own free will.

It's one thing for progressives to influence a democracy to freely embrace and enforce civil rights.

It's another thing entirely for progressives to wish they could impose environmental activism or economic reform by gunpoint and bootheel. And history has given us a clear record of what happens to people when progressives of this ilk get their wish.
Click to expand...

So maybe we should say that liberal progressives are almost always right, whereas statist progressives are often wrong?
 
theprestige said:
Maybe we should say whatever we believe to be true. But if we want anybody else to agree with us, maybe we should define our terms and present our arguments.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I was using big scary words with complicated definitions, but then again conservatives do have funny ideas about what liberalism means sometimes, on account of listening to conservatives misuse the term.

Let's call "liberal progressives" people committed to advancing the cause of maximising positive liberty (the ability to have your choices about how your life should go fulfilled) to the extent that it's consistent with maximising positive liberty for the worst off in society.

That captures universal subsidised education, equal rights for women and minorities, universal suffrage, social welfare programmes, abolishing slavery and so on.

Let's call "statist progressives" people committed to maximising overall social welfare to the extent that it's consistent with maximising welfare for the worst off in society. That covers radical communist redistribution of wealth, command economies and so on.
 
pipelineaudio said:
So are smoking bans at bars liberal progressive or statist progressive or just liberal?
Click to expand...

Statist progressives would definitely support smoking bans.

Liberal progressives could go either way as I see it, depending on whether they see the positive liberty of being able to go to smoke-free places outweighing the positive liberty of being able to smoke. It's a case where any one society can't extend both positive liberties to its members simultaneously and so one has to give.
 
the positive liberty of being able to go to smoke-free places
Click to expand...

Isn't that the act of not entering a private establishment you don't like?

Interesting how you could see a choice vs a restriction of choice as a positive liberty
 
pipelineaudio said:
Isn't that the act of not entering a private establishment you don't like?

Interesting how you could see a choice vs a restriction of choice as a positive liberty
Click to expand...

Some people want to eat in smoke-free environments, some people want to work in smoke-free environments, and some people want to smoke up the environment. They can't all be happy.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Some people want to eat in smoke-free environments, some people want to work in smoke-free environments, and some people want to smoke up the environment. They can't all be happy.
Click to expand...
Since you're making this statement in the context of justifying a smoking ban in restaurants, I assume that when you say "some people want to eat in smoke-free environments", you mean "some people want to go into your restaurant, kick out all the smokers, prohibit you from ever letting people smoke in your restaurant again, and entitle themselves to the privilege of eating in your smoke-free restaurant whenever they want".

Because that's essentially what a smoking ban in private restaurants is. And it's pretty freakin' statist if you ask me.

Moral of the story:
  • The line between "liberal" and "statist" progressivism isn't as clear a boundary as some people seem to think
  • Progressives find themselves on the wrong side of it often enough
  • Progressives don't even alway s think the statist side is the wrong side

Kevin, I admit I find it hilarious that immediately after taking the trouble to make sure we all understood that you're the good kind of progressive that's almost always right, you promptly put your foot right into a big steaming pile of "bad" progressivism.

Which lead me back to my original position: progressives in general are often wrong, precisely because all progressives think the power of the state is just the hammer for whatever nail they want to pound on.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Since you're making this statement in the context of justifying a smoking ban in restaurants, I assume that when you say "some people want to eat in smoke-free environments", you mean "some people want to go into your restaurant, kick out all the smokers, prohibit you from ever letting people smoke in your restaurant again, and entitle themselves to the privilege of eating in your smoke-free restaurant whenever they want".
Click to expand...

Does the free market in your universe mean you get a good price for straw? Because you sure must use a lot.

Because that's essentially what a smoking ban in private restaurants is. And it's pretty freakin' statist if you ask me.

Moral of the story:
  • The line between "liberal" and "statist" progressivism isn't as clear a boundary as some people seem to think
  • Progressives find themselves on the wrong side of it often enough
  • Progressives don't even alway s think the statist side is the wrong side

Kevin, I admit I find it hilarious that immediately after taking the trouble to make sure we all understood that you're the good kind of progressive that's almost always right, you promptly put your foot right into a big steaming pile of "bad" progressivism.
Click to expand...

How about I say what my argument is? As opposed to you making it up for me, getting it completely wrong because your reading comprehension skills aren't up to scratch, and finding it "hilarious"?

I didn't say that statist progressives were wrong. Go back and read it. Run your finger under the words and say them out loud as you go if it helps. I said that we could agree that they were often wrong.

I didn't say they were always wrong. Mandatory seat belt laws, for example, are pretty clearly statist but the only people who oppose them are the lunatic libertarians who are so deranged there's hardly any point even talking to them.

I haven't sat down and had a long think about it, but I can't think offhand of any liberal progressive policies that have actually been pursued by the political left in living memory that I oppose. Maybe there are some, but I came up blank. Whereas the statist progressive ideas I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with.

Which lead me back to my original position: progressives in general are often wrong, precisely because all progressives think the power of the state is just the hammer for whatever nail they want to pound on.
Click to expand...

I think you need to think carefully about whether hammering is called for on a case by case basis, certainly. However if the nail needs hammering, and everyone's better off if you hammer it, I think failing to hammer it is wilfully counterproductive.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Does the free market in your universe mean you get a good price for straw? Because you sure must use a lot.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

How about I say what my argument is? As opposed to you making it up for me, getting it completely wrong because your reading comprehension skills aren't up to scratch, and finding it "hilarious"?
Click to expand...
Please do.

I didn't say that statist progressives were wrong. Go back and read it. Run your finger under the words and say them out loud as you go if it helps. I said that we could agree that they were often wrong.
Click to expand...
So you did. And that's fine, as far as it goes...

I didn't say they were always wrong. Mandatory seat belt laws, for example, are pretty clearly statist but the only people who oppose them are the lunatic libertarians who are so deranged there's hardly any point even talking to them.
Click to expand...
... and for you, it seems to end up here: Define opposition to your good ideas as lunatic, and you're justified in imposing your good ideas by force.

I apologize for implying statist progressivism is always wrong. I intended to point out that progressivism isn't so easily divided into "liberal" (mostly right) and "statist" (often wrong). Instead, it is more appropriately characterized as a social theory that values the destruction of existing institutions and the creation of new ones, by force if necessary, in the name of progress, and that this value system naturally leads progressives to statist solutions, wherever they believe such solutions are necessary to make progress. The question of progress towards what, exactly, is at the heart of the "progressives vs. conservatives" debate, I think, but we probably won't see that side of it discussed much in this thread.

I haven't sat down and had a long think about it, but I can't think offhand of any liberal progressive policies that have actually been pursued by the political left in living memory that I oppose. Maybe there are some, but I came up blank. Whereas the statist progressive ideas I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with.
Click to expand...
Which goes directly back to the OP's thesis: "Progressives are always right..."

I think you need to think carefully about whether hammering is called for on a case by case basis, certainly.
Click to expand...
Welcome to conservativism, brother.

However if the nail needs hammering, and everyone's better off if you hammer it, I think failing to hammer it is wilfully counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Now all we need to do is agree on whether it's a nail that needs hammering, a board that needs planing, a complex system that needs fine-tuning, or a social order that needs upheaving. That, plus an agreement on "everyone" and "better off", will lead to an outcome that is likely to be not only "progress" but also "right".
 
Last edited:
Reading this thread has been interesting. Some of the debate has fallen into the typical right vs left slugfest. But to reiterate, I'm not saying that progressives are always right in the sense that their ideas are always superior (this is usually a personal value assessment). Rather, I'm saying that progressive ideas usually bear fruit over time, whereas conservative issues tend to wither on the vine.

In some sense, this is a tautology: The names tell you all you need to know ... for things always change. But consider the evidence...

The workplace--better safety, better hours, compensation, family leave, etc.

Foreign policy--no more isolationism, World Court, United Nations, IMF.

Environment--tide turning against oil companies and against AGW deniers.
Alternative energy on the rise. Clean air, water, ozone, etc.

Health Care--Ever-increasing public (gov't) participation.

Personal Freedoms--took a blow after 9-11, but all trends of the last 300 years are towards liberty (end of slavery, woman's rights, gay rights, etc)

Economy-progressive taxation, EITC, welfare programs for the poor, etc. Trend toward increased regulation (30-year blip excepted).

To my eyes, conservatives have always acted as road blocks: Their only purpose is to slow down progress. Put it this way... Whatever a conservative believes today will be shameful fifty years hence. I'll let you do the thought experiment yourself. Pick any historical American political/societal issue ... (except Eugenics :))
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom