Unemployment

[Jester]

The heart of progressiveness is egalitarianism by force, by laws and regulations or literally the point of a gun as we saw in Iraq.

I think you're just projecting. You've found a word that functions as a kind of antithesis of your beliefs, and therefore are applying that label to those you disagree with. It's like a Communist referring to every bad thing as "Bourgeois", regardless of how ridiculous it makes them sound.

Scarcely any progressives supported the Iraq war. Most were vehemently against it. Your category is nonsensical. It does not map onto historical or current groups of progressives. It certainly doesn't accurately capture the beliefs of those who self-identify as progressives. You've just taken this term and twisted it beyond all recognition to be your all-purpose bogeyman.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Scarcely any progressives supported the Iraq war. Most were vehemently against it. Your category is nonsensical. It does not map onto historical or current groups of progressives. It certainly doesn't accurately capture the beliefs of those who self-identify as progressives. You've just taken this term and twisted it beyond all recognition to be your all-purpose bogeyman.

Unless you count Neo-Cons as a brand of militaristic progressives bent on bringing liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries (usually by force). Yes, they are very different from the GLBT, tree hugging, universal health care brand of progressives. Yet they have the same process, and philosophy, with different agenda's.

You are holding tight to a two dimensional perspective of political affiliation. You are either left wing, or right wing, right? But, if you look at the core political ideologies or philosophies, the US party system is just a brand which indicate which side of the middle you prefer.

So I take it you don't agree that progressivism is a philosophy of elitist egalitarianism?

[Jester]

Unless you count Neo-Cons as a brand of militaristic progressives bent on bringing liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries (usually by force). Yes, they are very different from the GLBT, tree hugging, universal health care brand of progressives. Yet they have the same process, and philosophy, with different agenda's.

I don't know what the "same process" means. They certainly don't share the same philosophy, not even close. Different agendas certainly - this is rather the point, no? That their goals are not only different, but diametrically opposed?

You are holding tight to a two dimensional perspective of political affiliation. You are either left wing, or right wing, right?

That would actually be a one-dimensional perspective. And no, I don't. But you seem to be approaching a zero-dimensional view, where practically everyone occupies one point labelled "progressive".

But, if you look at the core political ideologies or philosophies, the US party system is just a brand which indicate which side of the middle you prefer.

My political horizons are hardly limited to the right and left of the United States. We are, however, currently talking about the US, so it makes sense to discuss it in terms that apply to that context. "Progressive" is one such term, describing a particular reformist branch of what is usually called the "left". It is not a global term to encompass everyone to the left of Grover Norquist.

So I take it you don't agree that progressivism is a philosophy of elitist egalitarianism?

"Elitist egalitarianism" is a naked contradiction - "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Most of the progressives I find appealing are profoundly anti-elitist, practical egalitarians, who see civil liberties and fundamental equality as compliments rather than contradictions. Expressed in political economy terms, they (and I) believe in the creation of a society where all people, regardless of the randomness of their birth situation, or the randomness of life's accidents, are given the ability to improve themselves as best they can. The broad context is freedom, both in economic and social terms. But this is balanced against the practical reality that freedom needs to be nurtured. Nature provides us with a profoundly unfree, unequal world, and society is our tool to fix that as best we can. This is a profoundly non-elitist philosophy - nobody is "better," and everyone should be enabled to develop their potential, whatever that may be.

The notion that Richard Nixon or George Bush would fit in this category is absurd.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Edit: I'd throw in a heavy dose of elitism as well. The debate for progressive change starts with assuming people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good.

No. The debate for progressive change starts with assuming that we, as a society, cannot let people suffer and die needlessly if we can help to prevent it. It is based on the concept that we are empathic members of humanity and not totally self centered individuals. Whether that argument is right is, of course, debatable. Few accept either extreme position, but where the balance should lie is difficult to determine.

However, once it is accepted that society owes a responsibility to the individual (and, regardless of your feelings and political leanings, that has been accepted in most industrial societies including the USA), then the individual must owe a responsibility to society. If the state is going to pay your bills, then the state can (and should) require that you do anything reasonable to minimize those bills. Such as wearing seat belts, etc. The very fact that such laws are needed is an indicator that "people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good." Except that it is not so much for their good as for ours. That seat belt might make the difference between minor injuries (and minor costs) and major injuries (with major costs). Both the individual and society are well served by that seat belt. And yet, people are constantly ticketed for failure to wear them.

Of course, seat belts are only one (trivial) example But they illustrate many of the points involved. The balance of responsibilities. The interests of individuals and of society. The assumption of control following the assumption of liability.

Now, your proposed solution seems to be to remove all government involvement. Fine. Consider the history of the United States. At first, there was no social security, no Medicare, no educational system, no labor laws, no fire department, no police force, no army, no OSHA, no treasury, not even a central government. And it didn't work. So in 1781 they tried the Articles of Confederation. It was better, but not enough. Then, in 1789, the Constitution went into effect. Still better, still more government involvement, still not enough. But it was a framework within which what was necessary (and, sometimes unnecessary) could be accomplished. And in that framework, we have the situation as it is now.

Few, I would think, find the present situation ideal -- few ever have. There are problems, although just what they are is a matter of contention. There are proposed solutions ranging from the simplistic to the visionary. But to propose that we return to the status pre 1781 is probably one of the most simplistic of all. Do we really want to repeat all the mistakes of the past two and a quarter centuries?

We can go forward, we can go back, or we can stand still. There are no other choices. Unless one is happy with the present situation, then standing still is not an option. Going back does not solve the problems, it simply puts us in the situation that generated the problems in the first place. That leaves going forward. Will it solve the problems? Maybe not, but it is the only course that stands any chance. Progressive? What's the alternative?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

"Elitist egalitarianism" is a naked contradiction - "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Most of the progressives I find appealing are profoundly anti-elitist, practical egalitarians, who see civil liberties and fundamental equality as compliments rather than contradictions. Expressed in political economy terms, they (and I) believe in the creation of a society where all people, regardless of the randomness of their birth situation, or the randomness of life's accidents, are given the ability to improve themselves as best they can. The broad context is freedom, both in economic and social terms. But this is balanced against the practical reality that freedom needs to be nurtured. Nature provides us with a profoundly unfree, unequal world, and society is our tool to fix that as best we can. This is a profoundly non-elitist philosophy - nobody is "better," and everyone should be enabled to develop their potential, whatever that may be.

Good, we can agree on the egalitarian part. Elitist is in choosing who gets to determine "what is best". When the Congress, and the President defy the will of the people, they are elitist. When the Congress passes laws on which TV's or light bulbs you can buy, or demanding that you must own health insurance policy, then that is elitist. They know better than the individual what is best for the individual. And, in many cases, I'm sure they are correct. But, the nature of individual liberty is that we can choose to do smart things, or dumb ones. So when I say elitist, I mean the practitioners, and egalitarian in expressed philosophy.

[Delc]

They know better than the individual what is best for the individual. And, in many cases, I'm sure they are correct. But, the nature of individual liberty is that we can choose to do smart things, or dumb ones.

Thats all well and good up to the point where it has an effect on your neighbor. Would you support personal freedom if your neighbor decided to start burning his garbage up wind from you?

[kandrathe]

Thats all well and good up to the point where it has an effect on your neighbor. Would you support personal freedom if your neighbor decided to start burning his garbage up wind from you?

No of course not. If we go back to natural law, rights bestowed would not impinge on the freedoms of others, nor require others to supply them for you. Of course, if I feel that my neighbor is infringing on my freedom (polluting my air and shortening my life), then this is where , a friendly chat, or eventually if needed, laws and jurisprudence can help us resolve such issues. There are interesting questions about property rights that I'm not sure have been adequately resolved even now. If I buy a 5 acre lot, can I chop down every tree? How about 500,000 acres? We assume that land owner will be good stewards, and this is not always the case (e.g. strip mining). Which has required special conservation laws to place boundaries on land ownership to limit permanent ecological/ecosystem damage.

You have the right to life, the right to be free (e.g. not enslaved or indentured), and the right to pursue prosperity, but always within the limitation of the individual, and what they own. But, you don't have the "right" to live in a nice home, or get affordable health care, or get a quality education, or drive a car. You can aspire to those things, but they are not "rights" which should be a concern of government.

[ShadowHM]

But, you don't have the "right" to live in a nice home, or get affordable health care, or get a quality education, or drive a car. You can aspire to those things, but they are not "rights" which should be a concern of government.

So you keep insisting...

However, a government does do better when citizens are healthy and educated. Where did the 'nice homes' and 'car driving' come from? Your ability to find and drag in red herrings is rather remarkable.

[Chesspiece_face]

No of course not. If we go back to natural law, rights bestowed would not impinge on the freedoms of others, nor require others to supply them for you. Of course, if I feel that my neighbor is infringing on my freedom (polluting my air and shortening my life), then this is where , a friendly chat, or eventually if needed, laws and jurisprudence can help us resolve such issues.

Ah, so laws and government have a place if you are trying to defend your rights against your neighbor infringing on your freedoms and polluting your land but damned if government should interceed with your rights to purchase products (lightbulbs from your example) which are inefficiently made and whose production spills pollution and poisons into the ground and air over the predominantly poor.

The logical hoops you jump through to make your points always amuse me.

[Jester]

Elitist is in choosing who gets to determine "what is best".

I think you mean "paternalist". The great statist "father knows best." Elitism is different, though the two can coexist, if paternalistic policies are seen as the natural role of an elite.

When the Congress, and the President defy the will of the people, they are elitist.

You live in a democracy. "The will of the people" is expressed through voting, or more capriciously, through polls. It strikes me that, looking at the makeup of the government, the diversity of presidents, and the broad range of opinion, that there is no single "will" to follow or defy. Government is negotiated amongst various groups, who rise and fall in popularity, trying to advance their own agendas. Elections arbitrate this negotiation. Right now? The party that favours increased provision of social programs controls all three elected arms of government. That's not an accident, and it's not because of elite decisions. Congress is not the House of Lords - their members are elected, by, of, and for the people.

When the Congress passes laws on which TV's or light bulbs you can buy, or demanding that you must own health insurance policy, then that is elitist.

Paternalistic, yes. And paternalism has to be kept in check by liberty. But this does not mean that there is no role for government in the provision or regulation of certain goods and services. Elitist, no. They are not saying only certain people can be trusted with light bulbs, or TV sets. And again, democracy: their power to regulate these things derives from the mandate of the people, not from some vast aquatic ceremony.

They know better than the individual what is best for the individual. And, in many cases, I'm sure they are correct. But, the nature of individual liberty is that we can choose to do smart things, or dumb ones. So when I say elitist, I mean the practitioners, and egalitarian in expressed philosophy.

For the provision of some things, individual action is insufficient. Collective action is necessary to overcome coordination failures and contradictory interests inherent in the market system. Health care is an excellent example of this, because of the complexity and uncertainty of the risks involved, and the high variance of the costs. Education is another, because those who need to consume it are uniquely unable, at least in their basic years, to provide it for themselves. I would also argue similarly for some transportation and utilities infrastructural systems - a city with 20 separate subway systems is a city with no functional subway system. Policing and military services are an obvious risk if held privately, endangering the entire concept of liberty. Enviromental issues also follow this logic - my environmental costs are difficult to calculate, and inflicted primarily on others. The market is unable to solve that problem, even in a Coaseian sense, because I can't mail 1/100000th of a penny to everyone on earth every time I turn on the heater.

These are places where government has a role, where individuals will either be unable to solve the problems themselves, or where such a solution is highly suboptimal. Given the importance of many of these sectors, and how colossally expensive market failure is (just look at US health care costs!), I think this trumps the abstract need for absolute individual choice in all matters. Indeed, the adequate provision of these things creates the groundwork for the provision of more important, more developed expressions of liberty. It's not accidental that the freest countries in the world are also ones with well-developed government sectors. This is true even of economic freedoms.

Heck. Didn't this thread start talking about unemployment statistics?

-Jester

[Jester]

There are interesting questions about property rights that I'm not sure have been adequately resolved even now. If I buy a 5 acre lot, can I chop down every tree? How about 500,000 acres? We assume that land owner will be good stewards, and this is not always the case (e.g. strip mining).

Funny. Some would say that land ownership rights are just that - ownership rights. You can treat your land as you would treat your house, to live in, rent out, or demolish as you see fit. That's what liberty is, right? The ability to do what you want with what's yours, free of interference?

Or, as noted Objectivist parody Andrew Ryan put it:

On the surface, I once bought a forest. The Parasites claimed that the land belonged to God, and demanded that I establish a public park there. Why? So the rabble could stand slack-jawed under the canopy and pretend that it was paradise earned. When Congress moved to nationalize my forest, I burnt it to the ground.

Rather interestingly, land stewardship was one of the major original arguments for the development of enforceable private property rights in the first place. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Funny. Some would say that land ownership rights are just that - ownership rights. You can treat your land as you would treat your house, to live in, rent out, or demolish as you see fit. That's what liberty is, right? The ability to do what you want with what's yours, free of interference?

I was thinking back to our discussion about Pete's right to live peacefully in his neighborhood. If one neighbor is frequently having loud parties all night, and filling the road with a traffic jam, and generally disrupting the peacefulness of the neighborhood, then what manner of jurisprudence should hold sway? There is a social dynamic in the US/Canada that is different than other places I've visited in the world. In most places, we are very transient in where we live, and so we don't really have a very cohesive notion of village. It happens frequently that property changes ownership, and the owner's land use does not conform to what the "village" members expected. Whether that be an obnoxious loud party animal, the collector of junk cars, or the multi-national who wants to tear down the houses and put in a mini-mart.

I've been involved in a popular movement within my local community which is resisting modernization of our roads (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, etc.), high density development, and maintaining a precedent of 1 acre minimum lot size (many are bigger). While there are fewer residents, the tax base remains stable, the home prices remain higher, and the amount of services required remains lower.

[kandrathe]

However, a government does do better when citizens are healthy and educated.

I'm not opposed to people figuring out a way to make these things affordable. I want everyone to be healthy, and to be educated. But, I'm opposed to the government, by force of law, reaching into our pockets to pay for it for everyone, regardless of the costs. I'm just generally opposed to the notion of herding everyone to the water hole, and forcing them to drink. Then if they still won't drink, we shoot them (e.g. Jail time for not buying health insurance).

I also want everyone to have a productive and fulfilling vocation, adequate nutritious food, warm clothing in winters, heating for their homes, and a nice place to live. The government's role in my area is limited to police, fire/rescue, sewage treatment, repairing the roads, snow plowing, and mail delivery, with snow plowing being the most useful. We have very low crime rates, and most of the fire/rescue activity is paramedic in nature. All those other things we figure out how to do for ourselves without making the government do it for us.

But, when you get the the State level... things get crazy. We have 3 state funded supplemental health care plans for poor people, Minnesota Care, SCHIP, and general assistance. This is above and beyond the Federal Medicaid program.

Our cost per child per year in our public K-12 schools is now, $21550. Which is about 2/3 the full cost of a year at one of Minnesota's most expensive private colleges.

[kandrathe]

Ah, so laws and government have a place if you are trying to defend your rights against your neighbor infringing on your freedoms and polluting your land but damned if government should interceed with your rights to purchase products (lightbulbs from your example) which are inefficiently made and whose production spills pollution and poisons into the ground and air over the predominantly poor. The logical hoops you jump through to make your points always amuse me.

What role does the government have in ensuring that products are manufactured efficiently? Should the government hire people to review the manufacturing processes of every product? You think it is fine for the government to dictate that everyone should buy only cars who's MPG is over say 40, or 50? Should they set limits on the number of Kwh you can use in your home in a month?

And... When you say, "spills pollutions and poisons into the ground and air over the predominantly poor", would you have an example in mind where the polluter was not held accountable? Also, I'm not sure how you came to think I support anyone's activities that pollute the land, water, or air. I support the rule of law, whether that be criminal, tort, or contract. If you are "damaged" you have the common law right to be made whole.