Are there any progressive ideas being advance that are not statist?

[Dr.Who]

Are there any progressive ideas being advance that are not statist?

I am betting there are some but I generally fail to see them. Generally whenever I see a progressive idea and I ask why it is being advanced I see that it has strong statist elements. Is that proof that that is the reason? No but it is interesting that the one common denominator of all progressive ideas is that they are statist - unless I can see some examples.

To qualify as an example the example must originate from a progressive (that would eliminate straw man arguments and gross generalizations) and someone in leadership must be advocating such an idea. (leadership could mean a politician or it could mean a popular progressive thinker or a strong organization)

My first example was going to be gay rights until I realized that gay rights always includes marriage in which the state is given authority to hand out licenses or not. Giving the state the authority to hand out licenses increases statism. Gay rights used to include the notion that whatever happened in the privacy of your own bedroom was no one else's business. But that is not being advance anymore.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, by definition.

"Progressive" was a word the leftists hijacked to apply to what they were doing, when "liberal" because too closely identified with the big-government socialism they were pushing.

And even "liberal" was a word they had hijacked, when "socialist" started to be revealed for what it was, back in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s and they felt they could no longer call themselves that and still get votes.

What is now referred to as "progressive", is in reality nothing but the original big-government socialism the Democrats have been pushing, pretty much unchanged, since the 1920s and 30s. The content, and the goals, have not changed. Only the name changes, as people learn what the latest name really refers to.

In another twenty or thirty years, as more and more people find that "progressive" actually refers to an agenda where big government takes over central planning of the routine details of people's lives, removes the concept of private property, and makes most people dependent on government for their sustenance, direction, and livelihood... the people pushing it will start calling it "enlightened" or some other new name the doesn't (yet) mean what their agenda is.

As for your question, "Are there any progressive ideas being advance that are not statist?"

Of course not. "Progressive" has been hijacked to the point where it now refers to big-govt socialism... which is 100% statist, of course.

 

[Openmind]

No, by definition.

"Progressive" was a word the leftists hijacked to apply to what they were doing, when "liberal" because too closely identified with the big-government socialism they were pushing.

And even "liberal" was a word they had hijacked, when "socialist" started to be revealed for what it was, back in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s and they felt they could no longer call themselves that and still get votes.

What is now referred to as "progressive", is in reality nothing but the original big-government socialism the Democrats have been pushing, pretty much unchanged, since the 1920s and 30s. The content, and the goals, have not changed. Only the name changes, as people learn what the latest name really refers to.
In another twenty or thirty years, as more and more people find that "progressive" actually refers to an agenda where big government takes over central planning of the routine details of people's lives, removes the concept of private property, and makes most people dependent on government for their sustenance, direction, and livelihood... the people pushing it will start calling it "enlightened" or some other new name the doesn't (yet) mean what their agenda is.

As for your question, "Are there any progressive ideas being advance that are not statist?"

Of course not. "Progressive" has been hijacked to the point where it now refers to big-govt socialism... which is 100% statist, of course.

How cute! You guys learned a new word!
Or is it Fox News who came up with this?

 

[GenSeneca]

Dr.Who, I think the thread needs a better explanation of Statism than what you offered in the OP:

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time.

The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.

The first choice—and the only one that matters—is: freedom or dictatorship, capitalism or statism.

That is the choice which today’s political leaders are determined to evade. The “liberals” are trying to put statism over by stealth—statism of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist kind—without letting the country realize what road they are taking to what ultimate goal. And while such a policy is reprehensible, there is something more reprehensible still: the policy of the “conservatives,” who are trying to defend freedom by stealth.

Ayn Rand quotes about Statism​

And to answer your question: No. There are no Progressive ideas being advanced by either party which doesn't have Statism as it's foundational principle. We don't need to look beyond our own forum in order to find statism on parade.

 

[dogtowner]

You guys learned a new word!

its fun, you should try it sometime !

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr.Who, I think the thread needs a better explanation of Statism than what you offered in the OP:

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time.

The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.

The first choice—and the only one that matters—is: freedom or dictatorship, capitalism or statism.

That is the choice which today’s political leaders are determined to evade. The “liberals” are trying to put statism over by stealth—statism of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist kind—without letting the country realize what road they are taking to what ultimate goal. And while such a policy is reprehensible, there is something more reprehensible still: the policy of the “conservatives,” who are trying to defend freedom by stealth.

Ayn Rand quotes about Statism​

And to answer your question: No. There are no Progressive ideas being advanced by either party which doesn't have Statism as it's foundational principle. We don't need to look beyond our own forum in order to find statism on parade.

Thank you for adding that definition as it sheds light on the subject and may help us to talk about it better. However, the definition as written might also leads to at least one area of confusion: By a loose reading of the definition above any degree of statism at all (like the amount one minute after ratification of the const.) is equated with the kind of statism in which the gov controls the majority of man's endeavors. Any concession that the state can coerce men even for the best of reasons is only a matter of degree in difference from full blown statism.

I would hope that we could all have a closer reading of what you said:

That man's life and work belong to the state - not just portions of it - that is statism. That the state can force and coerce and enslave and rob and and murder others - that is statism. The state that deprives a killer of his life after due process and for the best of reasons is not statist. But the state that deprives men of their rights beyond a certain point no matter how altruistic the motives is statist. Surely the state must not be completely statist to be statist and clearly it must not commit all of the offenses on the list but also committing just one would not necessarily be enough to be statist either.

 

[Dr.Who]

How cute! You guys learned a new word!
Or is it Fox News who came up with this?

So easy to get pulled into the world of tit for tat. We all do it. I know that within you is the desire to be better than that - and yes it takes effort and an intentional decision.

So do you think that the progressive leadership is advancing any ideas that are not statist?

 

[Dr.Who]

No, by definition.

I don't quite see that you have proven that it is by definition.

Only one counter example would be needed to show us that it is not by definition.

Anyone?

 

[Openmind]

So easy to get pulled into the world of tit for tat. We all do it. I know that within you is the desire to be better than that - and yes it takes effort and an intentional decision.

So do you think that the progressive leadership is advancing any ideas that are not statist?

If you look at the GOP definition of statism, you could argue that they don't. . .but then again, the GOP definition of a lot of ideas is made up to fit their needs. And, while progressive believe in the State having a role in helping the economy throught tough times, so that a majority of the people do not suffer too much from those downturn in the economy, they do not believe in the State taking over every aspect of the economy. . .but if you look at solely "economic statism," at this particular time in history, the GOP MAY be able to show some validity to the argument (on a time limited basis).

However, if you look at social statism, it is (on the contrary) the GOP who is engaging in social statism philosophy, by their constant (and increasingly vicious) attempts to control the social agenda and enter in people's life, even people's body with their ever increasing attemps to regulate individuals actions, EVEN in the bedroom!

If you look at the original definition of statism, you can also argue that the GOP wants to lead us towards it, by trying to force the majority of the populace to accept the supremacy of a very small percentage (actually, about 1/10th of a percent) of America, while stating that it is the "WILL" of America! What the GOP seems to want is not "STATE" rule, but "CORPORATE" rule. . .what they absolutely do NOT want (although there is still a pretence in some quarters that they are speaking for "all Americans!" is for PEOPLE to rule!

So, alghough I am not certain if such a word exists, IF you really believe the progressive are engaging in "Statism," The GOP and the right wing is engaging in "Corporatism," which is obviously a form of fascism.

Not that different from what Hitler tried to do. . .with the dire consequences we all know about.

I just think it is funny that the word "statism" suddenly appeared in this forum, at the same time as it began being thrown around in some part of the media!

I guess the word "fascism" wasn't good enough anymore? It seems that, the philosophy is that, if the GOP throws in enough "crap," some of it might eventually stick?

Not with intelligent people though!

 

[GenSeneca]

By a loose reading of the definition above any degree of statism at all (like the amount one minute after ratification of the const.) is equated with the kind of statism in which the gov controls the majority of man's endeavors.

That would be more a mis-read. A tiny fraction of statism will blossom into full blown statism over a long enough period.

That man's life and work belong to the state - not just portions of it - that is statism.

No portion of my life belongs to the state, none. To suggest that some portion of my life belongs to you, or the state, is to suggest that some portion of your life also belongs to me, or the state. If you consider even a fraction of your life to be property of the state, it's only a matter of time before your entire life is considered property of the state.

To think of it in other terms, the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law..." That statement means that Congress can make no laws that infringe on the rights of the individual, it's not a matter of degree, it plainly states that no degree of infringement is acceptable.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you look at the GOP definition of statism,

Can you tell us where to find this GOP definition of statism?

And, while progressive believe in the State having a role in helping the economy throught tough times, so that a majority of the people do not suffer too much from those downturn in the economy, they do not believe in the State taking over every aspect of the economy.

You seem to be saying that there are progressive leaders who do not believe the state has the authority to control every aspect of the economy. Using words like "every" sets a bar at unreasonably high levels so I am going to change your statement. You seem to be saying that there are progressive leaders who do not believe the state should or has the authority to control most aspects of the economy. Can you support that?

However, if you look at social statism, it is (on the contrary) the GOP who is engaging in social statism philosophy, by their constant (and increasingly vicious) attempts to control the social agenda and enter in people's life, even people's body with their ever increasing attemps to regulate individuals actions, EVEN in the bedroom!

So if the GOP is demonstrating social statism not by advocating control of most aspects of social life but merely by increasing their attempts to control social life then we should apply the same standard to progressives.

Scrap the challenge above and support the idea that the progressives are not attempting to increasingly control the lives and labors of the people of the US?

Next, returning to the definition we started with, can you support the idea that the GOP wants to control most aspects of peoples social lives? Does the GOP want to make sodomy illegal? Do they want to force gay people to get a license from the state to get married?

If you look at the original definition of statism, you can also argue that the GOP wants to lead us towards it, by trying to force the majority of the populace to accept the supremacy of a very small percentage (actually, about 1/10th of a percent) of America, while stating that it is the "WILL" of America!

Please explain and support.

What the GOP seems to want is not "STATE" rule, but "CORPORATE" rule. . .what they absolutely do NOT want (although there is still a pretence in some quarters that they are speaking for "all Americans!" is for PEOPLE to rule!

Corporitism is hardly only exercised by the right. As far as I can tell all congressmen and politicians do it about the same amount on either side of the aisle. If you have evicence that it is done more by one side let us know. (in a new thread)

So, alghough I am not certain if such a word exists, IF you really believe the progressive are engaging in "Statism," The GOP and the right wing is engaging in "Corporatism," which is obviously a form of fascism.

A dictionary would tell you quickly what statism means and that corporatism and fascism are not the same.

Not that different from what Hitler tried to do. . .with the dire consequences we all know about.

Godwins' law.

I just think it is funny that the word "statism" suddenly appeared in this forum, at the same time as it began being thrown around in some part of the media!

No conspiracy there. just a word that has come into popularity.

 

[Gipper]

I just think it is funny that the word "statism" suddenly appeared in this forum, at the same time as it began being thrown around in some part of the media!

You really have not been here long enough to conclude that members of the HOP have never used the word 'statism' before.

I can assure you my sweet it has been used numerous times before. It may be a term new to you, like so many things are new to you, it is not a new term to most of us.

 

[Dr.Who]

That would be more a mis-read. A tiny fraction of statism will blossom into full blown statism over a long enough period.



No portion of my life belongs to the state, none. To suggest that some portion of my life belongs to you, or the state, is to suggest that some portion of your life also belongs to me, or the state. If you consider even a fraction of your life to be property of the state, it's only a matter of time before your entire life is considered property of the state.

To think of it in other terms, the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law..." That statement means that Congress can make no laws that infringe on the rights of the individual, it's not a matter of degree, it plainly states that no degree of infringement is acceptable.

Conscription is constitutional.

 

[GenSeneca]

Conscription is constitutional.

Are you trying to say anything that is Constitutional cannot be considered statist?

 

[Dr.Who]

You really have not been here long enough to conclude that members of the HOP have never used the word 'statism' before.

I can assure you my sweet it has been used numerous times before. It may be a term new to you, like so many things are new to you, it is not a new term to most of us.

The word statism appears in 110 threads going back to 2007 on this forum. If we expanded the search to include statist or other variations of the word it might go back further.

The word statist itself, according to an online dictionary, goes back to the 60's. Probably with liberal roots back when liberals really championed liberty.