Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons (Read 2956 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45214
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #20 - Sep 19th, 2014 at 12:13pm
Print Post  
Quote:
So far you've given no evidence that progressives actually do possess these values. They don't. They build dehumanized societies where people who need mercy and forgiveness are either further raped and destroyed or turned into meaningless statistics by a careless, hostile bureaucracy.

Been there, done that. Epic fail. It is infinitely obvious that when people with evil ideologies are allowed to integrate into a society, they ultimately change that society and make it evil like them.

I have friends and family members who are 'progressives', and I can tell you they do value community, sharing, and helping others.
You're confusing individual 'progressives' with a 'progressive' system of government.
If you have a libertarian system of government, like that created by our Constitution, individual 'progressives' or even organized groups of 'progressives' or whole communities of 'progressives' are nothing more than citizens living in a country with a libertarian system of government.
There have been communists living in the U.S. since the beginning, but they've not managed to make this into a communist society. Like anarchism, communism is a fringe belief that appeals to only a few crazies.
Socialism or some "third way" seem appealing, but they will eventually be thrown on the dust heap of history with communism.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #21 - Sep 19th, 2014 at 5:08pm
Print Post  
What's the opposite of progressives?  Recessives?  Do I take this language in US terms to mean Democrats and Republicans respectively?  Shouldn't you all be slamming the latter as much as the former as to how it destroys society by limiting freedoms, pushing a military agenda and allowing crony capitalists to 'sleep with' government?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #22 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 1:48am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:22am:
"Human values of compassion, sharing and community are necessary to any civilized society."

That's what I said in my "Reply #13".
How does this imply that only 'progressives' possess these human values?


I like your posts generally Jeff - but you really stepped in it this time.

You left out the most  important part - you were obviously, strenuously objecting to a quote the was anti-Progressive. Dissident Right said roughly [my rephrase]  Progressives promote many negative values, and so a reasonable policy is to avoid integrating progressives and their values, and to the extant available by NAP to suppress and exclude them and their views.

It's dead-obvious that the subject refers to Progressives and that "compassion, sharing and community" refers to properties that would otherwise be absent without the integration or presence of Progressives.

Arg:         I dislike group X and think we should to exclude them.
Rebuttal:  But we need sharing.
Conclusion: Rebutter implies that inclusion of group X is a requirement to create "sharing".

Jeff clearly implied that by excluding Progressives there would be a lack of "compassion, sharing and community".

At best this was a bad use of language, Jeff.
===


On the actual topic -

Jeff's argument that Progressives must be included in society raises the question of what is a "society". To me it's the people we generally associate with.  I have no problem with Shakers, Quaker or Amish who VOLUNTARILY form closed societies.  Similarly I have no problem with 'Dissident Right' and those who prefer to "shun" people with opinions they disagree with.

Jeff is right that "the government should be limited" and that should be sufficient, but in the past 238 yrs we've seen the American experiment fail b/c the clear precise limits on the various parts of government have failed.   Who can make government (the sole force) act as it was intended, when demagogues and the federal-court [interpreters of the sacred scrolls] collude to re-interpret the meaning ??

We currently have a sort of dictatorship in which the government can act as it pleases and use force as it pleases within the loose constraint of whatever some demagogue can convince a gullible public is reasonable.  "Oh - the boogie-man terrorists are coming - so we NEED to survey all your phone calls and make you walk shoe-less through an airport while we snoop through your person and papers and perhaps we'll put a tracking chip in your ass next".  Or "Oh drugs are horrible and so we need to dispense with this tedious warrant business. Or "Oh gun violence is so awful that we'll make them impossible to own".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #23 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 3:09am
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 19th, 2014 at 5:08pm:
What's the opposite of progressives?  Recessives?  Do I take this language in US terms to mean Democrats and Republicans respectively?  Shouldn't you all be slamming the latter as much as the former as to how it destroys society by limiting freedoms, pushing a military agenda and allowing crony capitalists to 'sleep with' government?


Tap tap -  this is actually a pretty good definition despite the source !
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive

But here we have four pillars,
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2013/03/22/1761431/what-it-means-to-be-a-progr...

Quote:
In terms of values, Progressive Thinking breaks down the four pillars of progressive thought as follows:

1. Freedom. [...]   Progressives have a two-part definition of freedom:  “freedom from” and “freedom to”.  First, we believe that all people should have freedom from undue interference by governments and others in carrying out their private affairs and personal beliefs.  This includes our rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion as well as the freedom to control our own bodies and personal lives.  Second, we believe that all people should have the freedom to lead a fulfilling and secure life supported by the basic foundations of economic security and opportunity.  This includes physical protections against bodily harm as well as adequate income, economic protections, health care and education, and other social provisions

2.  Opportunity. [...]  Like freedom, the concept of opportunity has two components:  one focuses on political equality and the other on economic and social arrangements that enhance our lives.  The first component of opportunity prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious faith or non-faith, or disability.  It also means embracing the diversity of American society by ensuring that all people have the chance to turn their talents and ambitions into a meaningful life, not just the rich and powerful or dominant racial and ethnic groups.  The second component of opportunity involves the conditions necessary for people to be secure and to move up in life—health care, education, a decent job, labor rights, a secure retirement…

3.  Responsibility.  Along with freedom and opportunity comes responsibility — personal responsibility and the responsibility we have to each other and to the common good.   Personal responsibility requires each of us to do our part to improve our own lives through hard work, education, and by acting with honesty and integrity.  Responsibility to others and to the common good requires a commitment to putting the public interest above the interests of a few and an understanding that strong families and communities are the foundation of a good society.  It means working to achieve greater social justice and economic conditions that benefit civil society broadly.  It demands an open and honest government and an engaged and participatory citizenry…

This requires pubic investments in things like transportation and trade, innovation, a skilled workforce, courts to protect patent rights and contract agreements, public safety and other measures that support the creation of wealth and help to make individual prosperity possible.  It also requires progressive taxation, meaning those who have and earn more should pay more to help support the investments in things like schools, transportation, and economic competitiveness necessary to advance the interests of all.
A key component of responsibility involves ecological and social sustainability.  This requires on-going stewardship of our land, water, air and natural resources, smart use of energy, and the responsible consumption of goods…

4.  Cooperation.  Rounding out these political values which are primarily directed at the rights, opportunities, and duties of individuals is the basic progressive value of cooperation.   Cooperation is the foundation of our most important social institutions including our families, our communities, and our civic and faith groups.  Freedom without cooperation leads to a divided society that cannot work together to achieve common goals and improve the lives of all.  Cooperation as a value requires that we try to be open-minded and empathetic toward others and that we are accountable for their well-being as they are accountable to us.  Progressives believe that if we blindly pursue our own needs and ignore those of others, our society will degenerate.
Successful families and communities cannot exist without cooperation.  We also value human interdependence on a larger scale and accept the importance of looking beyond our own needs to help others and find global solutions to global problems.


I've highlighted a few of the statement I find offensive or wrong-headed.

No Dems are not all Progressives by a long shot.
Yes the Rep party is full of baboons and buffoons too.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #24 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 3:27am
Print Post  
I don't wanna hog too much bandwidth but on the 4 pillars of Progressives.

1. Is a badly stated view of negative vs positive rights.
2. Makes a claim that society is obliged to provide social services, but fails to consider who must be enslaved to provide these.
3. Is a claim that government knows best and that citizen are obliged to do what "we" consider best for "common good".  It specifies all sorts of public services; some that imply indoctrination by government or management of the economy by government is a necessity.
4. Some sort of touchy-feely claim that everyone should act as angels and ignore self interest.  This probably refers primarily to those with wealth that they hate so viciously.  The poor need not contribute or co-operate.

Massive amounts of paternalism, do-gooderism, utopianism, class warfare.  The concept the government is the sole solution to every human need.   Leads inevitable to totalitarianism.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45214
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #25 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 9:00am
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 19th, 2014 at 5:08pm:
What's the opposite of progressives?  Recessives?  Do I take this language in US terms to mean Democrats and Republicans respectively?  Shouldn't you all be slamming the latter as much as the former as to how it destroys society by limiting freedoms, pushing a military agenda and allowing crony capitalists to 'sleep with' government?

If you look back to the era of the classical liberals, they were opposed by monarchists of various sorts. The view of the classical liberals was that people, for the most part, could govern themselves. The opposition insisted that people were incapable of self government and must be led/guided/controlled by society's elites- at that time called "Royalty".
Over time, there hasn't been much change in the opposing viewpoints. Today, libertarians continue the position of the classical liberals, that people are by and large capable of self government. Those opposed to this viewpoint still believe that "common" people must be led by "experts".

What I call 'progressives' are the intellectual heirs of the monarchists. What they chose to call themselves changes periodically, but their fundamental belief doesn't. 'Progressives' believe that progress toward a better world/society can only come through control of the great mass of people by government/experts/elites.
People who call themselves Republicans who advocate a large and powerful government to lead and control the "common" people are 'progressives', as are monarchists, as is everyone who advocates a society controlled by government as opposed to a free society as advocated by libertarians.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45214
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #26 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 9:10am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Sep 20th, 2014 at 1:48am:
I like your posts generally Jeff - but you really stepped in it this time.

You left out the most  important part - you were obviously, strenuously objecting to a quote the was anti-Progressive. Dissident Right said roughly [my rephrase]  Progressives promote many negative values, and so a reasonable policy is to avoid integrating progressives and their values, and to the extant available by NAP to suppress and exclude them and their views.



DR said 'progressives' should be excluded from society. Deported or killed I suppose. You think people can be "suppressed and excluded without aggression? Really?

I said that 'progressive's have made, and will make, important contributions to any society, but they must not be permitted to control a government with the power to use force to implement their particular vision of a good society, or anyone else's for that matter.
'Progressives' living in a society governed by a libertarian charter like our Constitution are simply individuals who can chose their own way, but have no power to force it on anyone else.
DR's viewpoint, that certain ideas and beliefs are harmful to society and must be excluded (presumably by the use of government power?) is a 'progressive' viewpoint.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dissident Right
Ex Member


Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #27 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 10:04am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 19th, 2014 at 12:13pm:
I have friends and family members who are 'progressives', and I can tell you they do value community, sharing, and helping others. You're confusing individual 'progressives' with a 'progressive' system of government.

No, you're confusing beliefs that every decent human being holds with beliefs that derive from progressivism, and you're failing to recognize that these progressives throw all their compassion out the window the moment it comes time to vote.

Quote:
If you have a libertarian system of government, like that created by our Constitution, individual 'progressives' or even organized groups of 'progressives' or whole communities of 'progressives' are nothing more than citizens living in a country with a libertarian system of government.

What is this nonsense? American history is calling your name, Jeff. The progressives took your beloved libertarian government and turned it socialist. That is what happened, while your generation sat on its ass and checked off "Republican" because they refused to notice the progressive subterfuge going on right under their noses.

Progressives lie. Progressives undermine. Progressives scheme in backrooms, when the cameras are off, when nobody can hold then accountable. Progressives dodge the issues. Progressives refuse to argue honestly. They lie in wait for decades, biding their time, outlasting and outliving their enemies.

You. Cannot. Build. A. Community. With. People. Like. That.

Quote:
Deported or killed I suppose.

Evict them if possible, buy them out if not. At worst, scrutinize their every action and every lie, because you know that if given half a chance, they will destroy your society.

Quote:
I said that 'progressive's have made, and will make, important contributions to any society

Without ever mentioning a single one. Libertarians can make all those contributions themselves, thankyouverymuch. Progressives not needed.

Quote:
DR's viewpoint, that certain ideas and beliefs are harmful to society and must be excluded (presumably by the use of government power?) is a 'progressive' viewpoint.

Lol.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #28 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 10:22am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 20th, 2014 at 9:00am:
People who call themselves Republicans who advocate a large and powerful government to lead and control the "common" people are 'progressives'


Thanks for that.
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45214
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #29 - Sep 20th, 2014 at 10:47am
Print Post  
Quote:
No, you're confusing beliefs that every decent human being holds with beliefs that derive from progressivism, and you're failing to recognize that these progressives throw all their compassion out the window the moment it comes time to vote.



Philosophical and political movements arise from people. 'Progressive' theory didn't appear out of thin air, people created it, and people came up with the 'progressive' idea that government power could and should be used to used to force their beliefs on others.
Classical liberals, now libertarians, opposed that idea, but not the totality of 'progressive' thought. Classical liberals designed our Constitution to prevent the power of government from being used to force anyone's ideas, not just 'progressives', on others.

And yes, 'progressives' fought back, and generations of Americans (not just 'mine') didn't notice that restraints on government were being removed piecemeal, so now, we have returned to the Middle Ages blueprint for government, a wise and benevolent 'elite' will direct the commoners/serfs/peons/slaves.

Your solution is to "non-aggressively" remove or exclude from society everyone who thinks use of unrestrained government power can have a good end? I suppose your plan for actually doing this is a vague and non-existent as your 'plan' to institute anarchy?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy