A challenge to Shockernet Conservatives or Libertarians….

[moshock]

Sadly I have no "definition" of liberalism/progressive from this site. Can you people make an alternative argument?

My view of Liberal/Progressive fundamentals:

Healthcare should be a human right that no one should have to go without.

Workers should have the right to unite and dictate their work environment.

A person should have the right to determine what happens to their own body.

The government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

Everyone should have the right to express themself in any way

People with "more" should be taxed more. The government role is to re-distribute wealth by taxing the rich and using the revenue to create jobs and support the needy. I call this the "Robin Hood" theory.

The government should regulate all industry. Regulations and mandates can create jobs such as requiring all vehicles to get 35 mpg by 2020 (I made that up) or requiring a certain amount of trees to be planted to replace ones that have been harvested.

"Separation of Church and State". Religion has no place in government.

Every confrontation should be able to be resolved without bloodshed. No one should ever have the right to take another human life.

Maggie, is this what you are looking for ?

I believe that these all sound good on the surface but can and are twisted into things that could eventually destroy "the American way".

I'll rebutt all of these notions in another post if this is what you are looking for.

:wsu_posters:

[Maggie]

Sadly I have no "definition" of liberalism/progressive from this site. Can you people make an alternative argument?

My view of Liberal/Progressive fundamentals:

Healthcare should be a human right that no one should have to go without.

Workers should have the right to unite and dictate their work environment.

A person should have the right to determine what happens to their own body.

The government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

Everyone should have the right to express themself in any way

People with "more" should be taxed more. The government role is to re-distribute wealth by taxing the rich and using the revenue to create jobs and support the needy. I call this the "Robin Hood" theory.

The government should regulate all industry. Regulations and mandates can create jobs such as requiring all vehicles to get 35 mpg by 2020 (I made that up) or requiring a certain amount of trees to be planted to replace ones that have been harvested.

"Separation of Church and State". Religion has no place in government.

Every confrontation should be able to be resolved without bloodshed. No one should ever have the right to take another human life.

Maggie, is this what you are looking for ?

I believe that these all sound good on the surface but can and are twisted into things that could eventually destroy "the American way".

I'll rebutt all of these notions in another post if this is what you are looking for.

:wsu_posters:

Okay. Good effort. "Rebutt" away.

[Maggie]

Anyone else?

[Maggie]

As it happens my first class in law school was constitutional law – taught by the Dean of Seton Hall Law School. Our assignment, prior to class (you see you had to buy books and had “homework” prior to the first day) was Marbury vs. Madison – read it/know it. I was staying at the time in my Aunt’s apartment in Tribeca, on the couch, and I read that case back and forth probably a hundred times.

It was my first introduction to the Socratic Method. I was the first person called on in my entire class to discuss with the Dean Marbury. I did well, I think; but he did ask me a question for which I had no answer, I paused, and the girl next to me (who I had never spoken to casually moved her finger to a footnote – my savior --- for I was upset, shaking, embarrassed) saved me. The inquisition continued and when I thought I had a break I muttered, to my savior, – “What does KGB stand for”?

The point of this exercise was not humiliation – for my classmates were asked by the Dean if they disagreed with me speak (and they did) and later the Dean asked me “why are you wrong”. This wasn't an indication that the Dean thought I was wrong, it was training to emphasize that you can't effectively present your own argument unless you understand the opposing position as well as an adherent of that position might.

“Food for thought”.

[wufan]

As it happens my first class in law school was constitutional law – taught by the Dean of Seton Hall Law School. Our assignment, prior to class (you see you had to buy books and had “homework” prior to the first day)

Maggie, I find you to be an intelligent person, and I used to look forward to your political posts. However, they have grown tired and bitter. You sound very liberal in your tone and it is well pronounced in the elitist qualification of your own credentials above.

Recently you have stopped listening (reading for comprehension) to those that agree with you, and instead have chosen to condescend and attack if they don't overly agree with you to the point of fanatacism.

I'm not looking for a rebuttal, which seems to be your only means of communication, but instead, I emplore you to be slightly more friendly and less on the attack. I want to hear from the intelligent and interesting maggie, not the enraged activist.

[Maggie]

wufan,

I know you don’t want a response but you are going to get one anyway.

You are correct on all points (I am not sure what has gotten into me lately), except for the elitist part as it relates to the last post about my law school experience. I was only trying to illustrate how this type of exercise works in practice – from personal experience. The fact that I have a J.D. means nothing, nothing to me anyway. I know plenty of lawyers who are not all that bright. That said, there are other examples, I’m sure, you could have cited where I come across as highhanded, condescending, arrogant, or worse.

Thanks for the dressing down, I deserved it and I will endeavor to follow your advice. My apologies to all, and especially to Royal and Subgod.

I still think this exercise is worthwhile.

[wufan]

Maggie, it takes a truely humble person to respond in the way you did, and I have the utmost respect for you! I, as much as the next person, become overly sensative to political rhetoric from both sides. No matter what side of the fence one lives, this is a critical time for the future of our Nation, and perhaps the world. Often, I have to look to this very forum to center myself beyond macro-politics that don't affect the quality of my daily life.

I look forward to your continued insight! And, by the way, the exercise is indeed worthwhile (though I am unlikely to contribute).

[ABC]

I wish I had time to engage in this. And I still might.

As for Maggie being an elitist. Seton Hall ain't that great of a law school . . . :)

[Maggie]

I wish I had time to engage in this. And I still might.

As for Maggie being an elitist. Seton Hall ain't that great of a law school . . . :)

Seton Hall Law is not that bad ABC (it is well respected in NY and NJ), but when I enrolled my primary motivation was the law school (which is in Newark, N.J.) was only 20 minutes away, via the PATH, from MSG. ;-) Sad but true. Like many people - I just thought law school was the next step - so I decided it better be in a place where I could have a superior social outlet (my mind in my early 20s had different priorities).

I have lived in NY/NJ for over 15 years - but I am still a boy from Kansas, can't shake it, and don't want to.

[Maggie]

The liberal position. Written from a child’s POV because, it’s always for the children.

No one argues that liberty and equality are incompatible. Indeed, it is easy to argue that true liberty depends on equality. Some would argue that liberty means only freedom from outside compulsion. I say this is only half of true liberty. To be truly free one must be both unhindered and empowered. As an example, one might say that I am free to purchase the two seat convertible roadster of my dreams. However, I am only partially free to do so because, although there is no legal barrier, there exists a material barrier that binds me just as surely as a legal proscription. I will be told to work hard, live wisely, save my money, and one day that car of my dreams will be mine, but this is really not the case.

You see, I come from a very modest family. I attend decent, but not exemplary, public schools. They prepare me inadequately to succeed academically in even the basest of higher learning institutions. Beyond that, my family is unable to save for college. Because of my public school education, earning scholarships is out of the question. Student loans might provide a way, but then any increase in my earning potential will be swallowed whole by the payments. Even if I miraculously get a free ride at a state university and do well it still will leave me short of entering the workforce on the same terms as my neighbor whose parents send him to private school and will pay his way through the Ivy League. The best I can ever hope to receive from my public elementary education and public secondary schooling is perhaps a comfortable middle management position from which I will provide my children no better opportunities than those I have received. I will go to my grave having never experienced true freedom or the wind in my hair as I speed down winding roads.

What is to be done? It begins with my education. When the rich pay their fair share then the public schools will be able to achieve the same success as the private schools the wealthy send their children to. I will be prepared in such a school to compete equally in university and stand ready to take up employment that would otherwise be reserved for my betters. I will make enough to do more than just get by. I will pass on success to my children as the wealthy do to theirs. I will buy that car, and I will experience real freedom and the joy of the open road. But all this is just a pipe dream. The playing field is not level no matter what people say. I started my life standing in a hole, and if I’m lucky I won’t spend my life just digging it deeper for those who come after me. I am told I live in a land of liberty, but I am bound just as surely as I would be under tyranny. Until we are truly equal, I will never be free.

Not bad. Thoughts?

[moshock]

Sadly I have no "definition" of liberalism/progressive from this site. Can you people make an alternative argument?

My view of Liberal/Progressive fundamentals:

Healthcare should be a human right that no one should have to go without.

Workers should have the right to unite and dictate their work environment.

A person should have the right to determine what happens to their own body.

The government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

Everyone should have the right to express themself in any way

People with "more" should be taxed more. The government role is to re-distribute wealth by taxing the rich and using the revenue to create jobs and support the needy. I call this the "Robin Hood" theory.

The government should regulate all industry. Regulations and mandates can create jobs such as requiring all vehicles to get 35 mpg by 2020 (I made that up) or requiring a certain amount of trees to be planted to replace ones that have been harvested.

"Separation of Church and State". Religion has no place in government.

Every confrontation should be able to be resolved without bloodshed. No one should ever have the right to take another human life.

:wsu_posters:

Well this is my 3rd attempt at rebutting myself. Once the post gets to a certain length it kicks me out.

I'll keep it short this time. All of these liberal fundamentals involve taking something away from someone. Whether it's a business being forced to provide healthcare, a sucessfull person paying more than their fair share of taxes, or a woman taking a human life just because she wants control over her own body.

Thank you Maggie for challenging me to try to think like a Lib. It just re-enforced what Ronald Reagan engrained in me as a young businessman.

"Government is the problem"

I'm just a Kansas country boy and like it that way.

Note to Mr Obama. Please Stop everything you are doing and leave us alone.

:wsu_posters:

[Kung Wu]

The liberal position. Written from a child’s POV because, it’s always for the children.

No one argues that liberty and equality are incompatible. Indeed, it is easy to argue that true liberty depends on equality. Some would argue that liberty means only freedom from outside compulsion. I say this is only half of true liberty. To be truly free one must be both unhindered and empowered. As an example, one might say that I am free to purchase the two seat convertible roadster of my dreams. However, I am only partially free to do so because, although there is no legal barrier, there exists a material barrier that binds me just as surely as a legal proscription. I will be told to work hard, live wisely, save my money, and one day that car of my dreams will be mine, but this is really not the case.

You see, I come from a very modest family. I attend decent, but not exemplary, public schools. They prepare me inadequately to succeed academically in even the basest of higher learning institutions. Beyond that, my family is unable to save for college. Because of my public school education, earning scholarships is out of the question. Student loans might provide a way, but then any increase in my earning potential will be swallowed whole by the payments. Even if I miraculously get a free ride at a state university and do well it still will leave me short of entering the workforce on the same terms as my neighbor whose parents send him to private school and will pay his way through the Ivy League. The best I can ever hope to receive from my public elementary education and public secondary schooling is perhaps a comfortable middle management position from which I will provide my children no better opportunities than those I have received. I will go to my grave having never experienced true freedom or the wind in my hair as I speed down winding roads.

What is to be done? It begins with my education. When the rich pay their fair share then the public schools will be able to achieve the same success as the private schools the wealthy send their children to. I will be prepared in such a school to compete equally in university and stand ready to take up employment that would otherwise be reserved for my betters. I will make enough to do more than just get by. I will pass on success to my children as the wealthy do to theirs. I will buy that car, and I will experience real freedom and the joy of the open road. But all this is just a pipe dream. The playing field is not level no matter what people say. I started my life standing in a hole, and if I’m lucky I won’t spend my life just digging it deeper for those who come after me. I am told I live in a land of liberty, but I am bound just as surely as I would be under tyranny. Until we are truly equal, I will never be free.

Not bad. Thoughts?

Interesting Maggie. Now I'd enjoy seeing your counterargument(s).

[Maggie]

The liberal position. Written from a child’s POV because, it’s always for the children.

No one argues that liberty and equality are incompatible. Indeed, it is easy to argue that true liberty depends on equality. Some would argue that liberty means only freedom from outside compulsion. I say this is only half of true liberty. To be truly free one must be both unhindered and empowered. As an example, one might say that I am free to purchase the two seat convertible roadster of my dreams. However, I am only partially free to do so because, although there is no legal barrier, there exists a material barrier that binds me just as surely as a legal proscription. I will be told to work hard, live wisely, save my money, and one day that car of my dreams will be mine, but this is really not the case.

You see, I come from a very modest family. I attend decent, but not exemplary, public schools. They prepare me inadequately to succeed academically in even the basest of higher learning institutions. Beyond that, my family is unable to save for college. Because of my public school education, earning scholarships is out of the question. Student loans might provide a way, but then any increase in my earning potential will be swallowed whole by the payments. Even if I miraculously get a free ride at a state university and do well it still will leave me short of entering the workforce on the same terms as my neighbor whose parents send him to private school and will pay his way through the Ivy League. The best I can ever hope to receive from my public elementary education and public secondary schooling is perhaps a comfortable middle management position from which I will provide my children no better opportunities than those I have received. I will go to my grave having never experienced true freedom or the wind in my hair as I speed down winding roads.

What is to be done? It begins with my education. When the rich pay their fair share then the public schools will be able to achieve the same success as the private schools the wealthy send their children to. I will be prepared in such a school to compete equally in university and stand ready to take up employment that would otherwise be reserved for my betters. I will make enough to do more than just get by. I will pass on success to my children as the wealthy do to theirs. I will buy that car, and I will experience real freedom and the joy of the open road. But all this is just a pipe dream. The playing field is not level no matter what people say. I started my life standing in a hole, and if I’m lucky I won’t spend my life just digging it deeper for those who come after me. I am told I live in a land of liberty, but I am bound just as surely as I would be under tyranny. Until we are truly equal, I will never be free.

Not bad. Thoughts?

Interesting Maggie. Now I'd enjoy seeing your counterargument(s).

I didn’t write that, which is why I put it in “quotes”. Granted it is one of those situations where I wish I did….but I didn’t. How about this – I will make my argument and I will debate myself.

But first you have to take up the challenge – fair or not? I think it might be instructive and we all might learn something.

P.S. I can formulate arguments in opposition to that quote. That is the "easy" part.....

[Maggie]

[quote="Maggie"]

The liberal position. Written from a child’s POV because, it’s always for the children.

No one argues that liberty and equality are incompatible. Indeed, it is easy to argue that true liberty depends on equality. Some would argue that liberty means only freedom from outside compulsion. I say this is only half of true liberty. To be truly free one must be both unhindered and empowered. As an example, one might say that I am free to purchase the two seat convertible roadster of my dreams. However, I am only partially free to do so because, although there is no legal barrier, there exists a material barrier that binds me just as surely as a legal proscription. I will be told to work hard, live wisely, save my money, and one day that car of my dreams will be mine, but this is really not the case.

You see, I come from a very modest family. I attend decent, but not exemplary, public schools. They prepare me inadequately to succeed academically in even the basest of higher learning institutions. Beyond that, my family is unable to save for college. Because of my public school education, earning scholarships is out of the question. Student loans might provide a way, but then any increase in my earning potential will be swallowed whole by the payments. Even if I miraculously get a free ride at a state university and do well it still will leave me short of entering the workforce on the same terms as my neighbor whose parents send him to private school and will pay his way through the Ivy League. The best I can ever hope to receive from my public elementary education and public secondary schooling is perhaps a comfortable middle management position from which I will provide my children no better opportunities than those I have received. I will go to my grave having never experienced true freedom or the wind in my hair as I speed down winding roads.

What is to be done? It begins with my education. When the rich pay their fair share then the public schools will be able to achieve the same success as the private schools the wealthy send their children to. I will be prepared in such a school to compete equally in university and stand ready to take up employment that would otherwise be reserved for my betters. I will make enough to do more than just get by. I will pass on success to my children as the wealthy do to theirs. I will buy that car, and I will experience real freedom and the joy of the open road. But all this is just a pipe dream. The playing field is not level no matter what people say. I started my life standing in a hole, and if I’m lucky I won’t spend my life just digging it deeper for those who come after me. I am told I live in a land of liberty, but I am bound just as surely as I would be under tyranny. Until we are truly equal, I will never be free.

Not bad. Thoughts?

Interesting Maggie. Now I'd enjoy seeing your counterargument(s).

I didn’t write that, which is why I put it in “quotes”. Granted it is one of those situations where I wish I did….but I didn’t. How about this – I will make my argument and I will debate myself.

But first you have to take up the challenge – fair or not? I think it might be instructive and we might learn something.

P.S. I can formulate arguments in opposition to that quote. That is the "easy" part.....

[Kung Wu]

I don't believe it's possible to sum up the Progressive movement in a few paragraphs -- so like your example it has to focus on a theme. I'll take the anti-gun stance:

There is no place in society for guns. If citizens weren't allowed to have guns, there would be no gun violence and accidental shootings.

Our government is good so if citizens didn't have guns the agencies would be more able to protect individuals without fear of retaliatory shootings or stand-offs. If all guns were banned there would be no black market for criminals to possess them. I will be able to defend myself and my family with a club, because any attackers wouldn't be armed with a firearm either.

Guns are no longer necessary. There is no longer a need to hunt, as food supplies are well established nationally. There are plenty of sports in the world that don't use guns so banning those few sports that use them is worthwhile -- in order to keep guns off the streets. And as said earlier, with no guns on the streets I won't need to protect myself or my family.

The "Founding Fathers" were idiots. The government really owns all property, so why should people be given the right to defend it? And the government is the authority with the right to print money, so there can be no such thing as over-taxation -- taxation is just a matter of recollecting what was lent to the taxpayer by the government in the first place.