In an effort to better understand my friends with progressive political views, I am often on the lookout for articles that present just such an opportunity. We are friends in part because we share many similar views, but there is a deep chasm separating our ultimate understanding of the workings of an ideal society.
In a recent article, Stephen Lendman, a host on the Progressive Radio Network had this to say about the election season (inline italic comments mine). Notice my near total agreement with the points he makes. I am assuming that my progressive friends share a similar viewpoint as the author.
"Consider the unpalatable 2012 options, a choice between:
-- a so far unopposed lawless/crime boss/militarist/pro-war/anti-populist president; and
agree
-- a rogue's gallery of Republican aspirants, looking more like a police lineup than legitimate candidates for any office, let alone the nation's highest - with one exception, Ron Paul, ignored by America's media for the following reasons:
agree
(1) He advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve, owned and run by Wall Street. In fact, several times in Congress, he introduced the Federal Reserve Abolition Act. With no co-sponsors, no further action followed.
Yet, restoring sound money and a healthy economy requires Fed abolition, returning money creation power to the US Treasury as the Constitution mandates (Article I, Section 8).
agree
(2) He also wants squandering America's resources on imperial wars ended, using the nation's wealth instead for productive economic growth.
agree
(3) In addition, he opposes police state laws like the USA Patriot Act
agree
though not for all the right reasons
Don't know what Stephen deems are the right reasons, so no comment
Key for him is loss of personal privacy.
Not really, key for RP is that the Patriot Act grossly violates the Constitution, a document RP has sworn to defend and protect 11 times now. In particular, it effectively nullifies the 4th Amendment. The loss of privacy is a symptom of that nullification.
(4) While advocating free trade, he's against NAFTA, DR-CAFTA, and other one-sided FTAs, serving special interests, not everyone equitably.
agree, although I'm guessing he also objects to the term FTA associated with these agreements, in that there is nothing remotely "free trade" about them.
(5) He calls the war on drugs "costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime." True enough, but it's much worse, largely responsible for creating the world's largest gulag, mostly filled with nonviolent inmates, deserving reprimands and perhaps fines at most, not prison time.
agree
At the same time, as a libertarian, he believes government's only role is to respect, protect, and defend personal freedoms.
agree. To be clear, RP doesn't broad brush advocate what government should do, he limits his opinions to the context of the role he is seeking. Therefore, when he is seeking the federal presidency, his opinions reflect the job description of "president" as defined by the federal constitution; they do not reflect the job description of "king of the universe", where he has the power to do anything he wants. Therefore, when he says for example that the Dept Of Public Education should be abolished, it's not that he's against education, it's because he doesn't see where, in the job description of federal president, he could support such a bureaucracy.
As the Libertarian Party's Preamble advocates, everyone should retain "sovereign(ty) over their own lives," not "sacrifice (it) for the benefit of others.
agree. How could I not, it's the opening statement.
In other words, government's responsibility for universal healthcare, education, and other essential services is incompatible with personal freedom. Everyone should be on their own to provide them, even though millions, through no fault of their own, can't.
agree. So far that's 11 issues raised by a progressive, and I, a libertarian, agree fully with 10, and somewhat with the 11th. Where is the chasm?
In contrast, progressives define freedom and responsibility differently, believing government must assure equity, social justice, and safety net protections for society's least advantaged. Throwing them overboard can't be tolerated."
Oh, there it is. Here is a question then : how? Toleration be damned, how? How will government assure equity? How will they assure social justice? How will they provide safety nets?
There is no magic wand to wave to make stupid smart, or sick healthy, or uncoordinated graceful, or ugly pretty. There is however a way to make poor rich, or at least richer: the government calls it taxation - I call it theft - I suppose progressives call it the cost of doing business - if you're gonna raise some people up, it's faster & easier to coerce the others than to convince them. Take from Peter to pay Paul, and you are assured of Paul's support. Since there are more Pauls than Peters, how can you lose? I don't think it's that calculated, but that is it's essence.
What that makes, from my viewpoint, is a government that is master over all it's citizens, penalizing success to limit failure. Think of it as a giant insurance company, only you have to have a policy or you can't live here. And, your premium is a function of your success - the bigger your success, the bigger your bill. Land of the free indeed. If I risk all in an effort to better my position, should I fail, the loss is mine, but should I succeed, the gain belongs to all.
Personally I question the ethic that forces a man into the status of slave working part of his life for others as reward for his success. I guess I prefer voluntary relationships.
Charity has worked for as long as there has been personal excess & compassion. It requires educating people, and that is often slow & difficult work. It is also less certain than taxation, but is for me, unarguably morally preferable.
