Posted on Nov 13, 2016
CPT Infantry Officer
3.36K
20
15
1
1
0
Now that the election is over I'd like to solicit your opinions on the differences and the similarities between these three ideologies. "Politics" and "Progressive" are not included in the tags below. So, I included this question under American history and equality also. Politically these terms may mean one thing. Economically, they may mean something different. How did each idea emerge?
Avatar feed
Responses: 3
CPT Jack Durish
4
4
0
C'mon. It's a valid question and "research" is going to show you why. There are countless conflicting opinions. Basically, "Liberal" and "Conservatives" are labels that have been usurped countless times. I well-remember one famous Senator who laughed about being a Conservative in one decade and a Liberal in another without ever changing her opinions or positions. I have experienced the same thing. I am a classic Liberal. I believe in individual liberty. Today's "liberal" promotes the tyranny of large government. The Progressive is pretty well defined, but Progressives seem to run from it. Basically, Teddy Roosevelt was among the first "Progressives". But it was Woodrow Wilson who perverted Teddy's inclinations and gave the Movement a new direction. He wrote and spoke extensively on it, so it's hard to avoid. Progressivism is a Movement dedicated to the proposition that decisions, the big decisions, should be left to those best able to make them: The Intelligentsia. Fundamentally, they employ precisely the same reasoning that every monarch, satrap, dictator, oligarch, and tyrant has used throughout history to justify their position to govern We the People. They, of course, will argue that their intentions are far superior to other tyrants. Now, let's sit back and watch the Progressives among us appear with exploding heads and call me out...
(4)
Comment
(0)
CPT Infantry Officer
CPT (Join to see)
8 y
Spot on.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Capt Jeff S.
8 y
Well said CPT Jack Durish!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Kevin Ford
1
1
0
Loaded terms, but here is my stab at it.

Progressives want to make things better (whatever they perceive that to mean) through change. In one sense people who voted for Trump could be considered progressive, though I doubt many would appreciate the moniker.

Liberals tend to support the social aspects of libertarianism, but without the fiscal aspects. E.g. life, liberty, justice, equality for all.

Conservatives tend to want things to remain the same or go back to an earlier state. Their opposite is more progressivism than liberalism.

The funny thing about the two ideologies is what is progressive and what is conservative depends on the current and recent norms. How this has played out in the US recently is that conservatives don't want a lot of change in social values, a strong military to preserve the status quo and not too many people upsetting the apple cart, primarily when they perceive that the government is doing the apple cart upsetting. Modern US liberals tend to have more progressive tendencies; wanting things to change on the social front and willing to shoulder a larger collective burden to society to meet what they believe are its responsibilities and wiling to use the power of government to enact that change.

That's my rough definitions, though I'm sure they are not perfect. There are aspects under these definitions where people who consider themselves to be largely conservative are progressive and vice versa.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
8 y
SGT Jinger Jarrett - Since you state you deal in facts lets start with the income tax, you stated that it is unconstitutional. How do you square that belief with the 16th amendment to the constitution that states pretty explicitly that it is allowed?

I could go through the rest of your list and let's go through the legal basis for your beliefs based on current legal understanding. Then explain why your interpretation of the constitution should be given supremacy over current judicial and legislative understanding. I suspect this will be your largest hurdle given our common law legal system. Your rules of engagement are no opinion, just facts.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
8 y
SGT Jinger Jarrett - To be clear there is no ongoing dispute on the 16th amendment from a legal perspective. This matter has been brought to court and resolved on several occasions. If you want to do some research there is :

Miller v. United States
United States v. Thomas
United States v. Sitka
Brown v. Commissioner

I could keep going with these because there are a lot of cases on this and they were all resolved the same way. Your challenge, same as it was before, is why the court system isn't the valid institution to resolve this issue? Interestingly enough, Benson, the primary person pushing this idea was convicted of fraud because of trying to sell information promoting this idea.

If you can't resolve the basic legal argument you're going to similarly fall down when I being up court cases involving all those other programs and the precedence being set. The only evidence you've been able to provide amounts to, well I read the constitution and contemporary documents and disagree. Great, so did all the framers too, they disagreed on what most of it meant too, with each other.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
8 y
SGT Jinger Jarrett - I have given you my sources. I have given you four cases out of the many that support the legal position. We can always opine about legal matters; lawyers do it all the time. But we also live in a common law legal system and this case has already been litigated and decided. It is settled law.

Sure I could go back and look at the working again. I could even change my mind and agree with your interpretation, that doesn't matter. Our interpretations of the facts of the case our not legally binding, we're just idly speculating about it. The legal outcome of those cases, on the other hand, are binding within our legal system. It is that constitutional problem that you have failed to address and unless you do there is no legal foundation to your assertion, just opinion.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
8 y
SGT Jinger Jarrett - I'm sorry you feel that way, I certainly mean no offense. With the best of intentions, please do not decide that you don't need to pay your income taxes because of those arguments.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC George Smith
1
1
0
one thinks every one should feel guilty...
one feels every one else is at fault and should pay...
and the other goes to work and is Pissed because,... its His fault,... has to pay for every one else... and they want him to feel guilty...
(1)
Comment
(0)
CPT Infantry Officer
CPT (Join to see)
8 y
That about sums it up. I appreciate the simplification of your definitions.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close