Progressivism?

Damocles said:
Adding years to a life does not add life to years.

Becoming wussified versions of ourselves at the cost of vital freedom isn't something most want to call progress.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any regulation that has infringed my enjoyment of living or ability to get the most out of life one iota.

The "erosion of our liberty" panic is the same as the ice age panic of the '70's - completely unfounded. America in 2012 is probably as free an environment as the planet has seen in recorded history.
 
Onceler said:
I can't think of any regulation that has infringed my enjoyment of living or ability to get the most out of life one iota.

The "erosion of our liberty" panic is the same as the ice age panic of the '70's - completely unfounded. America in 2012 is probably as free an environment as the planet has seen in recorded history.
Click to expand...
True Dat. The information revolution has expanded personal liberties in our nation to historically unheard of levels. I'm sure that something that governments (left, right or center) are very uncomfortable with. Knowledge is power and in the case of government it advances our ability to hold government accountable and not the other way around.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that just makes most people morons. society is not a contract. the US Constitution is a contract.
Click to expand...

I believe it is, we as individual agree to live together, and as a result, we have the Constitution and laws that bind us as a society. There are also unwritten agreements that result as a society forms, cultural aspects we conform to as a society.
 
Onceler said:
Yes, most. And most don't have your paranoid view that every minor restriction = a wholesale sellout of liberty.

Society is a contract. Most consider restrictions & regulations acceptable if they make the world safer for all.
Click to expand...

That is rarely what happens. Normally we get restrictions and regulations that simply provide an illusion of safety. We give up freedom for the sake of that illusion.

Just look at the TSA at airports today as a prime example. We are not safer, but they have us removing shoes, belts, no liquids over 3.5 ounces, full xrays, etc...
 
Howey said:
1. Where’s the freedom in telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
2. Where’s the freedom in lying when domestic oil production today is at an eight year high?
3. Where’s the freedom in our teachers making less than most civilized countries?
4. Where’s the freedom in denying benefits to 9/11 law enforcement first responders?
5. Where’s the freedom in the Republican Party?
6. Where’s the freedom in telling two people in love what they can't be http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...-should-be-able-to-discriminate-against-gays/equal to their fellow Americans?
7. Where’s the freedom in denying a healthy lunch to school children?
8. Where’s the freedom in denying scientific space stations?
9. Where’s the freedom in denying comprehensive obesity counseling and wellness exams?
10. Where’s the freedom in denying anti-smoking programs and medical marijuana funding?
11. Where’s the freedom in the top 1% paying less THAN 1% in taxes?
12. Where’s the freedom in being a Republican?
Click to expand...

1) Where is the freedom in telling a woman she should have the choice to kill a child?
2) Domestic Oil production is up due to increases in STATE and PRIVATE land. It is down considerably on federal land.
3) We pay more per capita on students than almost any other nation on earth and we get far worse results
4) The top 1% pay far more than 1% of the taxes.
 
Superfreak said:
That is rarely what happens. Normally we get restrictions and regulations that simply provide an illusion of safety. We give up freedom for the sake of that illusion.

Just look at the TSA at airports today as a prime example. We are not safer, but they have us removing shoes, belts, no liquids over 3.5 ounces, full xrays, etc...
Click to expand...

Me having to remove my shoes and carry smaller liquids to fly a plane is not an infringement on my liberty.

To argue that it is would not just be a disservice, but actually offensive to those who have had to deal with actual restrictions on their liberty in history.
 
Rana said:
I believe it is, we as individual agree to live together, and as a result, we have the Constitution and laws that bind us as a society. There are also unwritten agreements that result as a society forms, cultural aspects we conform to as a society.
Click to expand...

what a crock
 
Rana said:
Not to rational human beings.
Click to expand...

tell us all how we are to conduct ourselves by these 'unwritten' agreements if we can't read them? I say again, what a crock. how is it 'rational' to conduct ourselves in society by unwritten agreements? can we start conducting business and commerce by unwritten agreements?
 
Superfreak said:
The point is that each of those would lead to a 'safer world' yet none of them would be progress... well, at least three of them wouldn't be
Click to expand...

No one (or very few) want a police state in return for 100% safety.

I didn't think I needed to add clarification to my overall point. In a nutshell, most will (and do) accept REASONABLE restrictions & regulations in return for a safer society. Part of what is seen as "progress" throughout history is the establishment of the rule of law, as well as defense & security forces, that make us all safer as a result of their existence. Most people are good w/ this, and see it as progress.

But no - they wouldn't accept a police state for more safety, or unreasonable restrictions. Any argument can be taken to the extreme.
 
Onceler said:
Me having to remove my shoes and carry smaller liquids to fly a plane is not an infringement on my liberty.

To argue that it is would not just be a disservice, but actually offensive to those who have had to deal with actual restrictions on their liberty in history.
Click to expand...

1) it is an unnecessary infringement done to provide an illusion of safety. Telling me I cannot carry a bottle of water through security for safety, while at the same time i can watch as they bring bottles through security so that I can purchase them on the other side at big mark ups... Having Xrays taken of me under the guise of safety... yeah that is an infringement.

2) i am not suggesting that all infringements are of the same magnitude. Trying to create a straw man isn't going to help your position.
 
Superfreak said:
1) it is an unnecessary infringement done to provide an illusion of safety. Telling me I cannot carry a bottle of water through security for safety, while at the same time i can watch as they bring bottles through security so that I can purchase them on the other side at big mark ups... Having Xrays taken of me under the guise of safety... yeah that is an infringement.

2) i am not suggesting that all infringements are of the same magnitude. Trying to create a straw man isn't going to help your position.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your premise that these very minor steps are unnecessary, or do not add to our safety. The sheer volume of people & objects that have to go through airport security every day is somewhat overwhelming; by adding these few steps, which take the average citizen very little time or effort, they make the jobs of the personnel at those checkpoints easier, and free them up to look for other items or conditions that could compromise overall security.

It's ludicrous to portray these things as any kind of infringement on "liberty." Try flying to Israel & back sometime.
 
Onceler said:
No one (or very few) want a police state in return for 100% safety.

I didn't think I needed to add clarification to my overall point. In a nutshell, most will (and do) accept REASONABLE restrictions & regulations in return for a safer society. Part of what is seen as "progress" throughout history is the establishment of the rule of law, as well as defense & security forces, that make us all safer as a result of their existence. Most people are good w/ this, and see it as progress.

But no - they wouldn't accept a police state for more safety, or unreasonable restrictions. Any argument can be taken to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know how you feel, I didn't think the use of extreme hyperbole would need to be explained, but the lefties on the board hounded me on it non stop.

The problem with your above is that the term reasonable is subjective. Is it reasonable to enforce seat belt laws? to force motorcyclists and cyclists to wear helmets? probably... but even those are debatable. The TSA is over the line as its restrictions and regulations do not make air travel safe from terrorists. The potential ban on the size of soft drinks in NY is way over the line.
 
Onceler said:
No one (or very few) want a police state in return for 100% safety.

I didn't think I needed to add clarification to my overall point. In a nutshell, most will (and do) accept REASONABLE restrictions & regulations in return for a safer society. Part of what is seen as "progress" throughout history is the establishment of the rule of law, as well as defense & security forces, that make us all safer as a result of their existence. Most people are good w/ this, and see it as progress.

But no - they wouldn't accept a police state for more safety, or unreasonable restrictions. Any argument can be taken to the extreme.
Click to expand...

and now we're down to defining reasonable. should reasonable be defined as 'what the majority want'?
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with your premise that these very minor steps are unnecessary, or do not add to our safety. The sheer volume of people & objects that have to go through airport security every day is somewhat overwhelming; by adding these few steps, which take the average citizen very little time or effort, they make the jobs of the personnel at those checkpoints easier, and free them up to look for other items or conditions that could compromise overall security.

It's ludicrous to portray these things as any kind of infringement on "liberty." Try flying to Israel & back sometime.
Click to expand...

and therein lies your problem... the term 'reasonable' is subjective. You don't mind. I do. It is absurd.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with your premise that these very minor steps are unnecessary, or do not add to our safety. The sheer volume of people & objects that have to go through airport security every day is somewhat overwhelming; by adding these few steps, which take the average citizen very little time or effort, they make the jobs of the personnel at those checkpoints easier, and free them up to look for other items or conditions that could compromise overall security.

It's ludicrous to portray these things as any kind of infringement on "liberty." Try flying to Israel & back sometime.
Click to expand...

did you just use the 'do as you're told and it will go easier on everyone' defense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top