Progressivism: In general, there is no limit to the right of the State

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

[yawningotter]

Progressives want to blame the excesses of Progressivism on the right. That is how they dismiss their history.

[Pollster1]

The left takes 1984, Atlas Shrugged, and Star Trek's Borg as guides, not as warnings.
It's a shame too - freedom was wonderful while it lasted.

[little jeremiah]

Bump for another educational article. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!

[mjp]

So here we have the answer to our query. Why is there no limit to the right of the state? Because that old eighteenth century philosophy "works disaster". The Founders were wrong. We progressives are right. Social replaces individual, and the state is our savior which will correct all of these ills.

The manual labor doctrine of Adam Smith and later Marx stated that only manual labor is productive activity, and so, the earnings of capitalists, businessmen, and the rich are unearned income. This justifies the freedom of the state to appropriate their private property and redistribute it to the rightful owners, the manual labor workers.

The anarchic concept of freedom, which states that the concept of freedom be wide enough to include the freedom to violate natural rights is an idea of Hobbes. In essence, Hobbes claims, a government comes into existence only with the appointment or institution of a ruler with absolute power — a power that effectively transcends all others, and over which there is no appeal.

[little jeremiah]

The older ethical systems may, I think, be called individual. The perfection of the individual, or the worthiness of the individual, to use another expression, was the end proposed. Moral excellence of a single person was considered as something which might exist by itself, and need not bear any relation to one's fellows. Men were treated as units, and not as members of a body. The new tendency of which I speak, however, proceeds from the assumption that society is an organism, and that the individual is a part of a larger whole. Rudolph von Ihering develops this idea in the second volume of his "Zweck im recht." The source of ethics he finds in society: the end of ethics likewise is discovered in society and from society according to this theory is derived the ethical motive power which resides in the human will. Social ethics thus replaces individual ethics.

The speech of Hell. There it is, in black and white.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’
Bill Clinton

“The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people.’’
Bill Clinton

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Thomas Jefferson

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”.
George Washington

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"The new tendency of which I speak, however, proceeds from the assumption that society is an organism, and that the individual is a part of a larger whole."

So is the following conservative or 'progressive' thought?

'The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals".'

[little jeremiah]

I don’t argue with lunatics, just as I don’t step in dog poop.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I'm just asking your opinion. If I promise not to respond, will you deign to give it?

[little jeremiah]

My final reply to you, as long as we are both on FR:

I never argue with lunatics. And that includes people who are duplicitous.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Smears me twice as his final reply. What a moral fellow!

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Little J loves his smears.

[ProgressingAmerica]

It’s progressive thought. This article should help, it addresses many of the same words from Ely that I do.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283075/progressivism-race-and-training-wheels-freedom-tiffany-jones-miller?pg=3

You’re right that the state is to protect both individuals and communities, but that’s not what Ely is getting at. He’s talking about the transition from individualism - and groups of individuals, to a collective - like a behive, where you and I are not individuals anymore. We are units.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"The new tendency of which I speak, however, proceeds from the assumption that society is an organism, and that the individual is a part of a larger whole."

So is the following conservative or 'progressive' thought?

'The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals".'

It’s progressive thought.

Thanks, PA! That was my take as well. Sad to say, it was recently offered up on FR as a conservative argument.

[muawiyah]

The rights of individuals ARE NOT EXCLUDED in that statement. But let's start with the First Amendment ~ it's about protecting the rights of the people to have religion free of government interference. A corollary to that is the state must protect the rights of those people to worship.

Your failure to comprehend the First Amendment is highly disturbing, and your response is right out of the Book of Useless Progressive Nonsense.

Second amendment ~ refers to the need for militias, and also refers to 'the people'. Third amendment .... keeps the Army from setting up camp in your family's home ~ the family being a fundamental group, or community, that undergirds all of society ~ BTW, this one is directed at Louis XIV. He sent the military to occupy private homes, eat their food, wear their clothes, sleep with their women ~ and all because those people refused to go to the same church as the king. It's about religious freedom.

You want me to go through the entire Bill of Rights and instruct you in the source of Conservative belief? You sure need it.

[GeronL]

bump

[JustSayNoToNannies]

As I already pointed out to you, "people" are individuals. Every one of those amendments is a defense of individual rights.

I'm against anarchy and for government protecting individual liberties - anything more is statism.

[muawiyah]

People is 'plural' for 'person' ~ but you can't have individual rights if 'the people' don't have those rights ~ in fact, if you have such a system that's the old traditional king/nobles system ~ and I am not a Royalist. You, on the other hand, are!

The old class system is not the worst thing that can happen to people ~ it's a step up from anarchy and barbarism, but we don't do that. The Second Amendment, in fact, by referring to the right to keep and bear arms literally enobles 100% of 'the people' ~ so all of us have all the rights and privileges that any nobleman ever had, and that's not bad.

Your problem is you're balled up in this false conflict between 'individualism' and 'community' ~ they are not in conflict. In fact the Bill of Rights tells me I can associate with whoever wants to associate with me and there's nothing you and your kind can do about it ~