Classic case of liberals in name only. What they claim is liberal is actually socialist.
They're socialist because their conception of freedom or liberty includes coercive action to 'equalize' whatever injustices liberty brings.
Enter at your own risk.
Comment of the day:
Libertarians usually use freedom as a quick word to describe the
Non Aggression Principle: free from initiated violence,
i.e., not threatening peaceful people with violence as a means of
control and coercion. Getting down to the details requires defining
"violence", "the initiation of violence", "peaceful", etc. It gets
wordy, so we use the word "freedom."
Progressives see libertarians claim "freedom" as a principle
(not an adjective describing principle), and then claim it as their
own, defining it as whatever they want, and stating that we're all
morally equivalent because we both want freedom, we just define it
differently. So, conscience clear by false equivalency, they have
no qualms with forcing their vision down our throats, since,
apparently, that's freedom, too, and we'd be shoving our concept of
freedom down their throats if we don't let them, i.e., if we resist
the initiation of violence.
It's similar to when libertarians say that they oppose violence,
and are accused of being pacifists. We use "violence" instead of
"initiation of violence" to avoid wordiness, and people miss the
point.
I just want to know why liberals call themselves progressives now?
ReplyDeleteAsk them.
ReplyDeleteI know that conservatives used the word for a time up here - Progressive Conservative. Other than that dunno how the word got expropriated by liberals.
As if those outside the camp are unprogressive.
Yeah, 'cuz Maddow, Matthews and the new breed of kids writing at Salon are soooo 'progressive.'
Please.