(01-20-2020, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: (01-20-2020, 03:59 PM)jj82284 Wrote: And enshrining that difference in law/state policy.
Going back to the concept of a political spectrum, to the right u have groups that feel the purpose of the state is to protect the rights of individuals.
To the left you have people who want to use the state to specifically target, marginalize, and strip the rights from groups they dont like or are inconvenient.
German national socialism targeted jews. American socialists target unborn children and to a lesser degree white males.
The great seductive power of the state is that once you have 50 plus 1 % you can then lend legitimacy to your anti-social, base, or even psychotic desires. After all, its democratic. But the concept of inalienable rights and limited government recognizes that just because a majority takes an evil position it doesnt make it any less evil.
That's a BS over-simplification of the political spectrum.
everyone agrees that the fundamental purpose of government is to organize a national defense.
The classical liberals added that the government should protect life liberty and property for everyone. They were reacting against slavery, serfdom, and the guild system.
After the classical liberals defeated all of those systems, you see the emergence of the progressives, who say that the government should do things that improve people's lives but that the private sector cannot or will not do. The progressives were never about taking rights away from anyone, or policing free speech. They just want more of your money, but it's not as if the classical liberals were going to let you keep it all anyway. That's why a two-axis political spectrum, where one axis is about money and the other access is about authority, becomes a lot more informative.
That's a childish denial of reality. Progressivism is absolutely about stripping away the rights of groups you dont like to take their stuff.
As you move to the left of anarchism and establish the state, it's TRUE that there is some form of compulsory taxation. The question is to what end. The constitutional republican/limited government proposition is that we erect the state to defend the inalienable rights of citizens through both domestic and foreign policy. Progressivism postulates that freedom of the populace should be subjugated to the whims of the "disinterested experts" in the state that regulate every aspect of our lives. The totality of the 20th century demonstrated the inherent flaws in this system.
As for policing free speech, they dont even try to hide it anymore. On college campuses across the country they are advocating that the first amendment is dangerous, you have armed thugs roaming the streets backed by the mainstream media, you have converted efforts from social media platforms to censor speech while claiming the legal protection of public platforms.
Your denial of the realities of progressivism illustrates the consequence of their outright supremacy in education popular culture and news media.
When Mussolini founded the first fascist government FDR sent his brain trust to study what he determined was the next iteration of progressivism "everything inside the state and nothing without it." He implemented a lot of the basic platforms and laid the foundation for government expansion at a near exponential level.
As for the political spectrum, the perpendicular axis model is based on the flawed assumption, which you share, that the left has something to do with libertarianism. That's not true. There is a difference between a dogmatic enforcement of counter culture as opposed to elevating individual freedom. For example, as a libertarian it makes sense to say u can marry who you want. That's wholly different to empowering the state to force a Baker or photographer to violate their religious belief system. As a libertarian it makes sense that you believe in allowing anyone from any race creed or color participate in the economy. It's another to enforce racial quotas from a centrally planned state to force equal outcomes or representation.
The only meaningful way to group political ideologies is based on the role of the state and individual liberty. That is a predictor of economic and foreign policy.
