Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Nonsense, Courtesy of Salon

 

HDThere’s something about liberals* when they talk about libertarians. From their point of view, those troglodyte conservatives are at least understandable. But libertarians bother them because they manage to hold a lot of “correct” positions yet are somehow wrong on things as basic as the minimum wage.

When it comes to talking about libertarians, liberals* seem to lose their minds.

A recent example of this comes courtesy of Salon.com, in a piece entitled “3 Inconvenient Facts that Make Libertarians’ Heads Explode,” by someone named Lynn Stuart Parramore.

Because I love everyone here at Ricochet, I have, not unlike Atlas himself, taken the weight of the world on my shoulders and read this so that you don’t have to. And I’m going to give you the highlights and dissect Lynn Stuart Parramore’s “facts,” because these kinds of things needs to be answered.

1. The inequality problem: Why do some people end up with most of the toys? The fact that in a capitalist system, money seems to flow into the hands of the few is a source of big headaches for many libertarians, though not all—some seem to regard any market outcome as the hand of God herself.

When Lynn Stuart Parramore is talking about “inequality,” she’s not talking about equal justice under the law; she’s actually talking about wealth distribution. In her mind, wealth is a bag of gold coins distributed to the lowly peasants by the lord.

The problem (as if there was only one) with this idea is that wealth isn’t distributed like that. Wealth, in essence, distributes itself. It flows to people who actively seek it.

Wealth inequality isn’t a problem in itself. To think so assumes that everyone has the same values. If one wished — if one only valued wealth accumulation for its own sake — one could work 18 hours every day, seven days a week, for decades and die alone in an apartment surrounded by mayonnaise jars stuffed full of hundred dollar bills.

That may be great for some people, I am not going to do it. Not only do I have a wife that would take issue, but I also value other things besides wealth accumulation. Therefore, I’ll have less than someone else.

Wealth inequality is a problem in two cases. First, if the wealthy prevent anyone else from gaining wealth. This does not happen in a free market based on voluntary transactions. It requires coercion and government. Second, it’s a problem if the poor are starving to death and cannot earn bread to live. Both were the case in pre-revolutionary France. Neither of them are the case in the United States. Neither of them can occur in a free market.

Lynn Stuart Parramore goes on to complain about bankers and their role in the financial crisis, using fraud to cheat the public somehow.

The questions I have to ask are

1. How did that work out for them in the long run?

2. What’s your solution?

What Lynn Stuart Parramore does not understand is that bankers play the long game. Liberals* seem to think that all capitalists are like train robbers. A train robber is good for one big score, then they run off to South America. There’s no long game involved. Bankers play the long game. The very long game. The centuries long long game.

In the long run, a massive fraud or a ponzi scheme self-destructs. It cannot be sustained. That goes for all businesses. Honest dealings and free exchange for mutual benefit is sustainable. Fraud is not. Crooked businessmen either get a reputation as crooks or flame out in a spectacular way.

But the solution to this alleged fraud is… what? More regulation? Yeah, sometimes banks do sleazy things to their customers with fees, but if Lynn Stuart Parramore is complaining about banks screwing customers, she needs to recognize that this screwing happens despite regulations. Short of nationalizing all banking, you’re not going to regulate that kind of thing away.

2. The public goods problem. In the libertarian utopia, you would find nothing but individuals making private transactions in private markets. Those exchanges between individuals would always be fair, because the laws of supply and demand would make sure that you got the things you need at a fair price. You want a pizza, you buy a pizza from a pizzeria, which makes it for you at a reasonable price. Everybody’s happy.

Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

She continues

Libertarians will try to argue that many things considered public goods can, in fact, be supplied by private markets. How would this work in the case of streetlights?

This streetlight thing is why you’re reading this. The ignorance that allows that argument really sets me off.

How would this work in the case of street lights? Easy: People light their own stuff. If I have a storefront, it’s in my interest to have my customers feel safe, so I can light my own section of the street. If you’re talking about a housing development or an apartment complex, those things could be handled by the property owners. Absent a government, property owners could band together and provide street lights if needed.

It doesn’t require a government to do these things. Private individuals acting in their own rational self-interest will do them without being prompted. Security cameras do good work in crime fighting. Notice how malls and stores install their own? No command needed to come down from on high to install them. It was done spontaneously.

I’ll give another example. I live in upstate New York. Every time there’s a snow storm, I have to wait for the government trucks to plow the government roads. But when I go to any private establishments, every parking lot is already plowed and salted. It’s done quickly and neatly. No government needed to command them to do that. Businesses do it on their own because its in their rational self-interest to do so. If I have a choice between trudging through a snowy parking lot to a store or walking through a clear parking lot, I’m going to choose the latter every time.

The problem with trusting “public goods” to the government is that the government is bad at providing services. It misallocates resources based on other considerations. It lights streets nobody needs lit. Those government streetlights are great, but what happens when there’s a budget shortfall? Suddenly there’s fewer lights.

Another thing you can point out to libertarians is how many public goods, like research and infrastructure, are necessary for all those wonderful market products they are so fond of. The iPhone would not exist if the public had not invested in research to develop GPS and touchpad technology, or developing the Internet, or creating the highways on which Apple can move its products.

Oh good. Well, I’m glad the government invented the Internet. See, I’m sure that if the government hadn’t spent millions of dollars on it, no one would have ever thought of connecting computer networks together once the technology had matured to that point,

I am reminded of a quote from Frederic Bastiat

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Lynn Stuart Parramore is of this same mindset. If the government didn’t fund the research that created such-and-such, the thing would have never happened. I reject that. If anything, government funding retards research. Government funding comes with government strings, it misallocates resources and the funding is often directed to serve political aims.

3. The regulation problem. Libertarians famously oppose government regulation of business. They assume that markets do not need any regulation because they are naturally competitive, and in competitive markets, good ideas and products will flourish, and bad ones will be punished (clearly, they haven’t watched cable TV lately). For them, competition is the great creative force of the universe and the best human endeavors are the result of people beating their rivals.

Reality check: Markets are not invariably naturally competitive. In fact, many have a tendency to move toward harmful conditions like oligopoly, which turns them into anti-competitive entities.

The libertarian will try to say that oligopolies are the fault of government intervention. But there are plenty of examples to refute this. If you look at history, even at periods when governments have been quite limited and have served as little more than a night watchmen, you’ll find big, nasty oligopolies, like the 19th-century railroads, or steel. Today, we find computer operating systems (think Netscape and Microsoft) as examples of oligopolistic conditions.

 First, how did that work out for Netscape?

See, usually when I hear this, they say “monopoly” instead of “oligopoly.” Lynn Stuart Parramore was smart enough not to say monopoly. An oligopoly is when a market is controlled by a small number of sellers. She goes on to give a few more examples, including automobiles and healthcare.

Lynn Stuart Parramore, do you know what cable TV, railroads, steel, the auto industry and healthcare all have in common? They’re all massively regulated!

Over and over again I encounter liberals* who blame free markets for being “messed up,” and the examples pointed to are almost invariably examples of massive government interference in markets.

Lynn Stuart Parramore bemoans instability in markets. Instability in markets is a good thing! That’s how we get new products! That’s how we get innovation. Markets get “messed up” because governments interfere in them in an attempt to maintain stability. Oligopolies are a problem only when a few companies collude with the government to keep out competition!

Of course they seem like “inconvenient facts” to you, Lynn Stuart Parramore, because you have a fundemental misunderstanding, not only of libertarians, but of each of these examples you’re complaining about!

*Author’s note: I don’t like calling them “liberals.” It irks me that such a beautiful and noble term should be subverted to serve the ends it now serves. But the term “progressive” is just such a corruption of the language that I prefer not to use it. So, for lack of a better term, I’ll use the term liberal.

There are 71 comments.

  1. Randy Webster Member

    Our neighborhood association paid to put in our street lights, and we pay for the electricity to run them.

    • #1
    • May 18, 2014, at 11:14 AM PST
    • Like
  2. Stad Thatcher

    Fred Cole: I am reminded of a quote from Frederic Bastiat “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

     There is so much thought and intellectual weight put into this post . . . for me, this paragraph is the money shot of the discussion.

    • #2
    • May 18, 2014, at 11:31 AM PST
    • Like
  3. Western Chauvinist Member

    Fred, I think I’m in agreement with all your points, but I’d like to get clarity on one thing. Are you not okay with local government putting in street lights? I haven’t thought deeply on the subject of local government responsibilities, so my first thought is that street lights seem like a legitimate function of local government — akin to securing the borders or national defense for the federal government.

    Do you disagree? Is it the proverbial “foot-in-the-door” for local government to exploit the budget for political ends?

    • #3
    • May 18, 2014, at 11:51 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Randy Weivoda Moderator

    I have nothing to add to this at this time. I just wanted to say “Great job, Fred!”

    • #4
    • May 18, 2014, at 11:54 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Z in MT Inactive

    Fred Cole: The problem (as if there was only one) with this idea is that wealth isn’t distributed like that. Wealth, in essence, distributes itself. It flows to people who actively seek it.

    Wealth is not distributed. It is created.

    Other than that, nice work!

    • #5
    • May 18, 2014, at 12:50 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Guruforhire Member

    Can we get rid of street lights in the name of global warming and kill 2 birds with one stone?

    • #6
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:13 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Jason Rudert Member

    For some reason, my head hasn’t asploded yet.

    • #7
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM PST
    • Like
  8. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    Guruforhire:

    Can we get rid of street lights in the name of global warming and kill 2 birds with one stone?

     Actually, an antiquated system of city owned street lights and the wiring and infrastructure to maintain them is a good example. If they were privately owned, it might make more sense for them to be free standing (as opposed to wired together) and have little solar panels on top.

    All of this is much easier to accomplish and much more likely to happen if they’re privately owned.

    • #8
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:21 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Grimaud Member

    I get the same “head exploding” feeling when I happen upon Bill Maher on HBO. I try to listen objectively to his “humor” and ranting and sycophantic audience while he mischaracterizes conservatives. Now he has a new technique, calling out Obama as an attempt to show evenhanded and high-mindedness. He is wrong in his philosophy and wrong in his critique, yet he has a soap box to air his views and he will not honestly debate a dissenting opinion unless he can stack the deck.

    • #9
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:22 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    Z in MT:

    Fred Cole: The problem (as if there was only one) with this idea is that wealth isn’t distributed like that. Wealth, in essence, distributes itself. It flows to people who actively seek it.

    Wealth is not distributed. It is created.

    Other than that, nice work!

     Yeah, I wanted to work in wealth being created, but I was so in love with that line about distributing itself that I didn’t include it.

    • #10
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:22 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Randy Weivoda Moderator

    Fred Cole:

    Actually, an antiquated system of city owned street lights and the wiring and infrastructure to maintain them is a good example. If they were privately owned, it might make more sense for them to be free standing (as opposed to wired together) and have little solar panels on top.

    I’m not so sure about that. Having a solar panel and battery system can make sense when you have a single electricity-drawing device that is miles from the nearest electrical source. But when you have street lamps every couple hundred feet in a city, I should think that it’s far cheaper to have them all wired into the grid. I suppose every house in a city could drill it’s own well (like homes in the country), but it probably works a lot better to just hook up to the city water supply.

    I look forward to the day, though, when we have cut so much unnecessary fat from government that we are down to seriously debating whether street lamps are a necessary function of city government. It might have to be in the sovereign nation of Cole Island.

    • #11
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:37 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    Western Chauvinist:

    Fred, I think I’m in agreement with all your points, but I’d like to get clarity on one thing. Are you not okay with local government putting in street lights? I haven’t thought deeply on the subject of local government responsibilities, so my first thought is that street lights seem like a legitimate function of local government — akin to securing the borders or national defense for the federal government.

    Do you disagree? Is it the proverbial “foot-in-the-door” for local government to exploit the budget for political ends?

     I was responding specifically to the idea of if-the-gummymint-dont-do-it-nobody-will idea that the article put forth about public goods and about street lights. I recognized it immediately as similar to the Muh Roads thing. (Btw, if anyone ever has any questions about Muh Roads, please direct them to Mollie Hemingway.)

    If I may get all anarchist for a second, I know everybody here on Ricochet is big on subsidiarity, but there’s no magical fairy dust that makes local government better at this stuff. It’s still gonna be politics. What percentage of mayors, town supervisors or highway superintendents anywhere lives on a street that is unlit and full of potholes?

    • #12
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:42 PM PST
    • Like
  13. Guruforhire Member

    Sorry, I rarely drink anymore and tonight i am enjoying some wine. But bear with me. All of this presupposes the necessity for street lights.

    Raised in a rural area, I am always shocked at the amount of waste that is our street light system when flying. Street lights would nearly never exist outside of government largess, and I have never seen the need for them. such a waste.

    • #13
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:45 PM PST
    • Like
  14. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    Randy Weivoda:

    I look forward to the day, though, when we have cut so much unnecessary fat from government that we are down to seriously debating whether street lamps are a necessary function of city government. 

    Seconded.

    Look, on the technical point, you could be right. I was really just spitballing there. I live in a place where we have ancient fire department call boxes still. Some are mounted on electrical polls, some are freestanding on ancient cast iron stands. Yeah, they’re a public good, obsolete by a half century or more. But they’re still there with their little red lights on top.

    • #14
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:50 PM PST
    • Like
  15. Guruforhire Member

    I am generally fine with roadz as they are a club good and funded as the same.

    • #15
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:50 PM PST
    • Like
  16. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    Guruforhire:

    Sorry, I rarely drink anymore and tonight i am enjoying some wine. But bear with me. All of this presupposes the necessity for street lights.

    Raised in a rural area, I am always shocked at the amount of waste that is our street light system when flying. Street lights would nearly never exist outside of government largess, and I have never seen the need for them. such a waste.

     That’s another aspect of it. Government misallocates resources. So there’ll be lights where they don’t need to be lights. Less likely to happen if they’re on somebody’s private tab. My own house doesn’t have any superflous exterior lighting.

    • #16
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:51 PM PST
    • Like
  17. Larry Koler Inactive

    Great little short course on this way of thinking. You call it libertarian but let’s face it: most of it is common sense.
    It’s quite disgusting to think about the motives for the author of the Salon piece: 1) She honestly hasn’t made any serious effort trying to understand libertarian theory or 2) she likes to mis-characterize ideas because straw men are easier to knock down.
    I think I understood libertarian theory pretty well the first time I read about or heard Milton Friedman discuss it on TV. How is it that an author can’t ask a libertarian to give her a short course so mistakes like this aren’t made? I am unavoidably forced to assume the worst about her — she doesn’t want to get educated and she likes tropes because the choir already knows the tune.
    Leftists like to win the war against them by attrition. They have all the foundations’ money, all the academic help, all the entertainment industry help and good sized pieces of the government to help. Over time, we will have an ignorant populace (they are doing pretty well so far on that) who can’t debate this.

    • #17
    • May 18, 2014, at 1:53 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Knotwise the Poet Member

    Nothing to add to the conversation. Just wanted to say, great post.

    And thanks for reading Salon so I don’t have to.

    • #18
    • May 18, 2014, at 2:39 PM PST
    • Like
  19. C. U. Douglas Thatcher

    The streetlight point especially amuses because for four years I worked with a private contracting firm that installed outdoor lighting systems. More often than not this was streetlights, but also parking lots and some building exteriors. Parramore’s statement is utterly ignorant.

    Not every street we installed lights for were public roads. Private roads got lights as well, and these were owned and maintained by the property owners. Moreover, parking lots are privately owned and maintained, and yet magically we were able to light them. Amazingly, here in Oregon private, non-union companies can install streetlights as well. In then end, public involvement can be non-existent.

    And yes, you can go out and buy a streetlight. There are private businesses that make the poles, make the fixture heads, and make the lights. Private businesses make the copper and/or aluminum wire (I recommend copper btw), the conduit, and even metering systems for these lights.

    Again: utterly ignorant. Hers is the view of someone who sees something and assumes that if its there, only government could have made it possible.

    • #19
    • May 18, 2014, at 2:55 PM PST
    • Like
  20. James Of England Moderator

    Fred, I think you’re being unfair on Salon. While you are quite correct to say that there are many libertarians who are not bothered by material inequality, there are also some who are. Inherited wealth is a particular problem for many. It’s true that she’s not rebutting you, and it’s not a particularly thoughtful piece, but if you’re a liberal wanting to make a self-identified libertarian feel uncomfortable about that label, material inequality isn’t a bad place to start. 

    I’d give her a stronger defence on railroads. It’s true that they’re massively regulated today, but they really were natural monopolies for a while. The South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company had a monopoly on traffic over its routes long before the Interstate Commerce Act not because it was enormously regulated, but because it wasn’t economically feasible to set up your own railway for a good while. Today, with greater population and stronger property rights than in the early-mid 19th century, we again cannot build new lines, making owners of existing lines local monopolists regardless of the regulation.

    • #20
    • May 18, 2014, at 3:22 PM PST
    • Like
  21. Fred Cole Member
    Fred Cole Post author

    James Of England:

    Fred, I think you’re being unfair on Salon. While you are quite correct to say that there are many libertarians who are not bothered by material inequality, there are also some who are. 

    Yeah, it bothers me some. I was tailoring my arguments to respond to hers. She says that when you talk about wealth inequality, a lot of libertarians go right to cronyism. And yeah, they do, that’d be my response. So I skipped that.

    The South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company is an interesting choice (and I have to wonder how and why you picked it). Look, there were lots of early monopolies like that. But government and railroads were intertwined through much of the 19th century. I don’t just mean regulations, but land deals, subsidies, and all the rest. If you’re looking for an example of free markets sans government interference, railroads ain’t it.

    • #21
    • May 18, 2014, at 4:18 PM PST
    • Like
  22. Bob Thompson Member

    James Of England: While you are quite correct to say that there are many libertarians who are not bothered by material inequality, there are also some who are. Inherited wealth is a particular problem for many.

     What is the libertarian argument of those troubled by inherited wealth?

    • #22
    • May 18, 2014, at 4:33 PM PST
    • Like
  23. James Of England Moderator

    Fred Cole: I don’t just mean regulations, but land deals, subsidies, and all the rest. If you’re looking for an example of free markets sans government interference, railroads ain’t it.

     OK. That’s more difficult, because it’s definitionally true. Obviously, you can’t have rail-roads exist without land deals (although I think that the SCC&RC did manage without subsidies; it was extremely profitable). Particularly in urban areas, if holdouts get to name their price for land, and one stubborn owner can damn an entire route, you have to give up before you’ve started.
    I don’t know if you meant your response to be “Yeah, well America shouldn’t have built railroads in the 19th century”, but I think that that would be far more damning than anything she wrote, and that you’ll find a lot of libertarians who feel that maybe it was OK for America to build railways and/ or canals. Indeed, a lot of them are actively keen on privately built rail, despite the need for expropriation to get it done. There are complaints about inadequate compensation, but that’s irrelevant to monopoly formation. 

    • #23
    • May 18, 2014, at 4:36 PM PST
    • Like
  24. James Of England Moderator

    Bob Thompson:

    James Of England: While you are quite correct to say that there are many libertarians who are not bothered by material inequality, there are also some who are. Inherited wealth is a particular problem for many.

    What is the libertarian argument of those troubled by inherited wealth?

     They’re for equality of opportunity, and inherited wealth creates an unequal playing field. I should clarify that I’m not a libertarian, do not have a problem with inequality, and am probably not the best person to represent that argument. Indeed, I don’t know if anyone on Ricochet could. There was a Catholic SoCon the other day who was making a related argument about the injustice of high capital returns (as with almost all Ricochet defences of hard left economic arguments, it was on a Francis thread), but I think libertarians who aren’t much interested in economic freedom will rarely be attracted to Ricochet. Gaby Charing is the only exception I can think of, and she’s rarely about. 

    • #24
    • May 18, 2014, at 4:41 PM PST
    • Like
  25. Bob Thompson Member

    James Of England: They’re for equality of opportunity, and inherited wealth creates an unequal playing field.

     The reason I asked the question is back early in the Obama administration, when the various early 2000’s temporary tax provisions were approaching expiration, I had numerous debates with liberals regarding federal inheritance tax. It seems to me that any true libertarian would argue that wealth should change hands as desired by the the owner of that wealth. I usually think of libertarians as politically right on issues of property.

    • #25
    • May 18, 2014, at 4:57 PM PST
    • Like
  26. iWe Reagan
    iWe

    Monopolies are not necessarily bad things. Early pioneers often earn monopolies. But they are merely a stage in economic growth. Monopolies that are not supported by cronyism always yield to competition over time.

    • #26
    • May 18, 2014, at 5:32 PM PST
    • Like
  27. Larry Koler Inactive

    iWc:

    Monopolies are not necessarily bad things. Early pioneers often earn monopolies. But they are merely a stage in economic growth. Monopolies that are not supported by cronyism always yield to competition over time.

     It’s interesting to read about the Progressive era and see what things they were worried about. The government was involved in both getting right-of-ways and giving land and money away to the companies who would build the railways. I’m convinced that the proper thing to do for any shared resources — land, air, rivers (how about tungsten or some vital element or compound that is only available in certain places? must be treated as land, eh? And what’s vital mean?) — is to have government involved in some way. For example, if a railroad has the only rails and the only right-of-way through somewhere and if they got a leg up from government money ($16,000/mile for the transcontinental railroad) or loans then surely the government has not only a right but a duty to treat everyone fairly with regard to this shared resource.
    I’m sure that Fred and others have contemplated such a scenario. What say you?

    • #27
    • May 18, 2014, at 5:52 PM PST
    • Like
  28. iWe Reagan
    iWe

    An easy solution is to put the resource up to bid. Make it all transparent. Terms of rights, royalties, etc would all be auctioned of on this basis.

    • #28
    • May 18, 2014, at 5:59 PM PST
    • Like
  29. Arahant Member

    Bob Thompson: It seems to me that any true libertarian would argue that wealth should change hands as desired by the the owner of that wealth.

    You are correct. James is coming from somewhere I don’t understand. Equality of opportunity? What is that? Does that mean a Black man should have the same chance as a White man to be Grand Dragon of the KKK? Libertarians are anti-government-coercion. How does one give everyone equal opportunity? When someone dies, do we confiscate their estate and redistribute it to all? That is not the libertarian way, nor is it the Libertarian way.

    James, whatever “libertarians” you have been speaking with who are conflicted about inherited wealth are confused. They may be partially of a libertarian bent, but not libertarians.

    In truly free markets, inherited wealth takes care of itself within a few generations. The scions of the house grow up in wealth, have no purpose in life, and waste the fortune in amusements. (It is the same in nations.) It is only when the markets are not free that the non-working wealthy manage to continually improve their financial positions at the expense of others.

    • #29
    • May 18, 2014, at 6:00 PM PST
    • Like
  30. Arahant Member

    Fred Cole: *Author’s note: I don’t like calling them “liberals.” It irks me that such a beautiful and noble term should be subverted to serve the ends it now serves. But the term “progressive” is just such a corruption of the language that I prefer not to use it. So, for lack of a better term, I’ll use the term liberal.

    The reason that “Progressive” is a good term is that they believe in progress in human nature. They believe, if only we had the right leadership to inspire the people, the people would grow and realize that profit is unimportant and that we’re all just one big family and need to take care of each other. Ah, progress in human nature . . . if only the right catalyst would appear.

    Individuals may grow and mature, spiritually and mentally. The human race does not. From what I can tell, it has not changed at all in the last few thousand years of recorded history. So, we either believe that human nature changes, or that it doesn’t. Progressives believe it changes. I believe I smell unicorn flatulence.

    • #30
    • May 18, 2014, at 6:07 PM PST
    • Like