+ 0 Votes Progressivism Please dogknees January 10, 2013 at 2:32pm PST Because to me limiting my own behaviour when it adversely affects others is a fundamental part of civilised behaviour. Liberty is always contingent on not impinging on the liberty of another. + 0 Votes If they don't have to submit to the will of another NickNielsen Moderator January 16, 2013 at 9:59am PST You don't have the right to deal with them. + 0 Votes Aggressor versus Defender maxwell edison January 10, 2013 at 11:50pm PST Progressivism is the aggressor in an ideological war. Progressivism takes away (steals) from others that which is not theirs. Liberty is the defender. Aggressors start wars. Defenders end them. + 0 Votes What, Max? Isn't the government your friend? DelbertPGH January 11, 2013 at 12:00am PST "Progressivism" is a pretty slippery term. I'm not sure what you mean by it, or what it's going to mean tomorrow, so I'll substitute another: big-governmentism. I think that probably captures your fears. I don't like government to be bigger than it needs to be. How big is that? We need government to do things that benefit citizens, which cannot happen (or won't happen well) if left to the initiative of individuals and private companies. If government tries to do for us what we would otherwise do on our own, it usually comes out costing more, and we are stuck with obeying unnecessary rules: that's bad. If government can do something we could do, but can make it cost less for everyone and distribute the benefits to people who might otherwise be unable to pay for it, that's good. (Street lighting, fire control, and police come to mind.) If government can effectively do things that no private party can accomplish, (national defense, courts, public health), then that's good. Life can often enough leave you with no choices, except those that would be a dishonor to make, and forces you to walk a path you don't want. Without big government, and the liberal-progressive state of mind that brings it into being and limits its tendency to grow to monstrous dimensions, most of us would face many more no-good-choice dilemmas. It would be a mistake to call the absence of good choice "liberty", or the acceptance of socially-constructed benefits "servitude." + 0 Votes Liberty for who, exactly? robo_dev Updated - January 11, 2013 at 2:02am PST In an intersection, I should have the liberty to proceed full speed, my liberty shall not be infringed by the red light, a silly device put up by the nanny state. In the same intersection I should have the liberty to proceed at full speed, safe in the comfort that the police and rule of law will help to ensure that others will stop at the red light, since my light is green, and that no libertarian a___hole will **** through the red light. + 1 Votes Once in Germany I saw a lot of election posters... john.a.wills January 11, 2013 at 3:03am PST Some ran "For the liberty that we love... vote CDU". Others showed grandma pushing a grandchild on a swing (the SPD had just upped pensions) and ran "Of liberty we understand more... vote SPD". + 1 Votes Definitions mjd420nova January 11, 2013 at 11:30am PST Opinions. Freedom Liberty All have differing definitions in every county of every state of the union. The right to free speech is the only one I can exercise and not have to worry about violating anyone elses rights. Plug your ears. I don't fully understand the term PROGRESSIVISM. Common sense doesn't exist. It's more like " Look out for me because I'm not". My rights are walked on daily and if I took an afront to every transgression, I'd go nuts, steal my mothers gun and kill some innocents. Spare me the lantern in the dark sermon and bring back the freedom to feel SAFE on the streets and in my home. Politics corrupted democracy. The governing body has no desire to do their jobs and the rest of the country falls apart while the idiots sit on their hands, or each others even. We have the right to agree or disagree but not to impinge those ideas upon anyone else but the politicians can do it on TV. Save that money and put it back into the neighborhoods that need help with the failing infrastructure that the federal management fails to consider neccesary. + 1 Votes Binary fallacy, to the extreme! AnsuGisalas January 12, 2013 at 1:24am PST I love how all movers and shakers in the USA seem to be always looking for a panacea. And, that panacea is always assumed to be something incredibly simplistic, like "No more guns", "No more gov't", "Freeing the market", "Outsourcing" or "Jesus!"... Pick one, just one, and then work to prevent all those other solutions from being implemented. And then you wonder why all your hard work only lands you deeper in trouble... Did you ever consider working together on the things you can agree on, WITHOUT relying on simplistic solutions OR hunting for "Panacea or bust"? + 1 Votes I'm sick of progressivism AV . January 12, 2013 at 12:41pm PST You know what? I'm for liberty. I am totally sick of supporting programs for every need du jour. Its like being nickeled and dimed to death with so called "good causes". Why can't I keep the fruits of my labor? We have all been duped by the progressive agenda in this country. I've come to this conclusion after working my entire life. I've paid into Medicare, Social Security, etc., etc., and now when it comes time for my turn, its almost out of money. WTF?! If I had been able to keep more of the money I had earned and invested it myself, I wouldn't be looking at this total train wreck when I'm about to retire. I'm sorry. I'm a little bitter. I paid into this and not by choice, just like the rest of you. I'm mad. Do you really want to trust your retirement to the government? If I was younger, I wouldn't. You're going to end up like me. I have an uncertain future, just like a lot of people. If I had liberty and didn't have the mandates of Social Security and Medicare, I would have been able to use that money for the retirement I want and it would be on my own terms. + 1 Votes Liberty and progressivism are not antagonists DelbertPGH Updated - January 15, 2013 at 6:06am PST Although you and I had similar American educations, I recall no course in my curriculum, "What Liberty Means to Young Max." (We were both young, back then.) Consequently, I don't actually know what liberty means to you, especially since you won't say. Clearly it is something different to me. I've thought a lot about liberty, and my idea of it has changed since we were in school. There are lots of points of liberty: saying what you want, running a business the way you want, worshipping in your style, being an atheist, owning a gun, doing what you want on your own property, disciplining your kids and dogs as you see fit, to move anywhere in the country, to apply for any job. It goes on and on. Not all liberties are mutually compatible, and if your liberty degrades somebody else's quality of life, then the state may have to restrict your liberty in the interest of that other guy's. When Huck Finn or Jeremiah Johnson felt they were being squeezed by society down some path they didn't like, they just pulled up stakes and got the **** out. Very few choose live that way; mainly a few off-the-grid survivalist neo-Nazi cranks in mountain valleys in Idaho. A big part of liberty for me is the pleasure of not having my life determined by poverty, not suffering bad health, being able to buy good whisky and wine close to home, to have controversial talks with intelligent people, and so on. Liberty is in part not having a lousy life, and that is a compromise: I do things I've not chosen freely (work, commute, pay taxes, never leave the house naked) because that's part of the rich lifestyle. Lots of little rules of behavior, but if I break the rules and wind up living like the poor people eight blocks from me, I have even more restrictions to endure. Some liberties I trade for others. Some of the Bill of Rights liberties are still strong and nearly absolute: religion, speech, gun ownership. When it comes to guns, though, what's important? Having a revolver, a bolt-action rifle, or a shotgun? Carrying a pistol in public under your shirt? Having several semi-automatic guns, with extended magazines and military features, that would be suitable for fighting off the National Guard? Owning a full-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, as was legal in the 1920s? Grenades and rocket launchers, to make your post-apocalypse contest with the Army more even? Some liberties are incompatible with the safety of your neighbors, or with their ability to feel safe from the guy with the arsenal down the street, or with the security of the state itself. Jeremiah Johnson could live deep in the woods, worship Satan at the top of his lungs in his front yard if he wished, shoot his gun in his front yard if he wished, because he exercised his special liberty to leave everything behind and live with no one. You and I are not him, and our esteem for liberty must be compromised in ways his was not. He's not a model for our times, and the absolutism of his values cannot be ours. ****, he shot Indian men, women, and babies on principle. If anybody told him he couldn't, he'd feel his liberty was being infringed. The state protects us from each other, and creates an environment wherein civil society and economy can flourish. The progressive state recognizes the interests of its citizens: when Teddy Roosevelt saw that trusts had grown to such power, he created ways for the state to limit the might of the trusts and to keep them from funneling the nation's income to a small circle of people. That's progressivism: finding things that only the state can do to enhance the lives and wealth of the whole people. I'm in favor of that principle, among other principles. Perhaps the biggest squeeze on liberty is experienced by small businessmen. Do you operate a business, by any chance? You will have noticed that I explain why I bring Huck Finn and Jeremiah Johnson into my discussion: not to suggest you are like them, not to create a false depiction of libertarian positions, but to show that some ideas of liberty that were once dear to American principles are no longer viable, at least not to men who are rooted in civilization. You will also notice that I am using "progressive" without worrying that you misunderstand my meaning by it, or insisting you tell me what you mean by it. I'll mean what I mean, and if you are unclear about that, just ask. + 0 Votes Liberty Defined maxwell edison Updated - January 15, 2013 at 6:48am PST (And it's a sad commentary that I have to post this.) Living without being subjected to the will of another. Personal space. Living without being subjected to the will of another. Owning and controlling ones own body, mind, thoughts, desires, goals, ambitions, choices, outcomes, etc., Living without being subjected to the will of another. Thomas Jefferson's definition: Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Living without being subjected to the will of another. Liberty and rights ARE NOT defined by anything that forces anyone to do anything. Progressives try to FORCE people to succumb to their will. Rights and responsibilities: However, to live in a free society, one must accept responsibility for it. Unfortunately, all too many people are unwilling to accept the responsibility that comes along with their naturally endowed rights. Moreover, there are people like Delbert and those of his ilk, who TAKE responsibility AWAY from people with their progressive schemes. They use government as the instrument of their misguided compassion. They use government as the instrument of their misguided pragmatism. They use government as the instrument of their misguided social engineering . They use government to make choices for other people. They use government as their instrument of tyranny over a voting minority - which is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Living without being subjected to the will of another.