Von Nauthaus at procfest

[MaineShark]

The way I think they will disarm america is a process called a Totalitarian Tiptoe, Its when they take your civil liberties peice by peice so that you will never have the willpower at anypoint to stand up

They will start taking away the large 100rounds mags, and people will give them up rather than die or go to prison
Then they will work on making some assult weapons illegal to buy, and eventually own.
Then they will take some types of pistols illegal, such as the small special compact weps.
Eventually you will be left with a BB gun, and they will want to take that to, but now when you decide to stand up thats when they use their thugs to disarm you

They've already used their thugs at that point.  Making a credible threat of force is not in any way different from actually acting out that force.  If you gave up your "100round mags" (or whatever they demand that you give up) to avoid being attacked, that was the work of their thugs.  You would not have taken that action unless you were threatened, hence their threat forced you to meet their standards.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

Remember the progressives are ... pro-civil liberties like libs.

Since when?  I can't think of any civil liberties that they support...

Joe

Free speech, assembly, right to petition, privacy, etc. etc. - see ACLU, etc. We're totally in league in opposition to Real ID, where neo-cons, of course, favor it.

[MaineShark]

Remember the progressives are ... pro-civil liberties like libs.

Since when?  I can't think of any civil liberties that they support...

Free speech, assembly, right to petition, privacy, etc. etc. - see ACLU, etc. We're totally in league in opposition to Real ID, where neo-cons, of course, favor it.

Free speech:  You mean, like censoring the Internet?

Assembly:  You mean, like wanting to shut down gun shows?

Petition:  You mean, like declaring that the government is above the law?

Privacy:  What privacy?

Real-ID:  National healthcare will do the same thing; they just oppose one sort of ID, because it was Bush's idea.

Joe

[MaineShark]

"Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest."

Wikipedia

Which has nothing to do with actual progressives in actual American politics.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

"Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest."

Wikipedia

Which has nothing to do with actual progressives in actual American politics.

I think the Wikipedia article reviews past progressives primarily (late 19th and early 20th century), and the current progressives are more united around opposition to modern corporate state excesses (agressive war, imperialism, corporate welfare, civil liberties violations, etc.), just like libertarians, so we end up identifying the same enemy. The progressives find "liberals" (modern liberals) to be softies on being anti-war, etc.

Progressives tend to find more solutions in social democratic state solutions because they don't trust the huge corporate powers and think handing everything over to them would be horribly dangerous. My opinion is that many libertarians are not inclined to be presenting them with viable solutions that are non-state oriented. My approach differs and does identify them as "prospects."

When you go through the issues on Common Dreams, a local (Maine) progressive site, for example, you see our concerns stated over and over (http://commondreams.org/) along with some that most libertarians don't feel are concerns. You also see some solutions stated that are obviously wrong to most of us.

The fertile ground is there, though, and our educational efforts are often better addressed to progressives than conservatives, simply because God prevents many conservatives from budging, whereas reason allows the progressives to see the light. (The reason I mentioned the interesting case of the World's Smallest Political Quiz being administered to the 2 groups in 2 successive weekends is that it kind of quantified something that I had suspicions of.)

Common Dreams founder is brother to our local Chris Brown (Manchester), a Freedom Forum attender (on an out-of-state assignment presently), so they end up going at it all the time, as you might imagine.

The approach suggested above (educating people who identify a common enemy) is different than that of some, but is very effective. Many modern progressives have come around to a libertarian stance when they realize that the social democratic solutions they propose will end up in the hands of the same statist enemies of freedom. Now, to have that little chat with Michael Moore 

[MaineShark]

I think the Wikipedia article reviews past progressives primarily (late 19th and early 20th century), and the current progressives are more united around opposition to modern corporate state excesses (agressive war, imperialism, corporate welfare, civil liberties violations, etc.), just like libertarians, so we end up identifying the same enemy. The progressives find "liberals" (modern liberals) to be softies on being anti-war, etc.

Progressives tend to find more solutions in social democratic state solutions because they don't trust the huge corporate powers and think handing everything over to them would be horribly dangerous. My opinion is that many libertarians are not inclined to be presenting them with viable solutions that are non-state oriented. My approach differs and does identify them as "prospects."

When you go through the issues on Common Dreams, a local (Maine) progressive site, for example, you see our concerns stated over and over (http://commondreams.org/) along with some that most libertarians don't feel are concerns. You also see some solutions stated that are obviously wrong to most of us.

The fertile ground is there, though, and our educational efforts are often better addressed to progressives than conservatives, simply because God prevents many conservatives from budging, whereas reason allows the progressives to see the light. (The reason I mentioned the interesting case of the World's Smallest Political Quiz being administered to the 2 groups in 2 successive weekends is that it kind of quantified something that I had suspicions of.)

Common Dreams founder is brother to our local Chris Brown (Manchester), a Freedom Forum attender (on an out-of-state assignment presently), so they end up going at it all the time, as you might imagine.

The approach suggested above (educating people who identify a common enemy) is different than that of some, but is very effective. Many modern progressives have come around to a libertarian stance when they realize that the social democratic solutions they propose will end up in the hands of the same statist enemies of freedom. Now, to have that little chat with Michael Moore 

Uh, that doesn't answer my question.

And I haven't found these "progressives" to be rational at all.  I was over in Maine and had to deal with the "Common Dreams" nuts all the time.  They were anything but rational or even vaguely libertarian.  "That which is not required is forbidden" seemed to be their motto.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

Just for fun, I looked up "progressive" in my Doubleday Dictionary

pro-gres-sive (adj) 1) Moving forward in space, advancing. 2) Increasing by successive stages. 3) Aiming at or characterized by something better. 4) Favoring or characterized by reform, new techniques, etc. 5) Increasing in severity, said of a disease. 6) One who favors or promotes reforms or changes, as in politics.

I am happy to call myself a progressive, because I favor reforms and changes, in other words: progress (toward a free society).

I'm always amused when people on this board are so quick to label themselves as "conservatives"; why in the world would anyone want to "conserve" the mess we've got now?

I gave a talk at the Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour called "Progress towards what?" - It was a libertarian talking to the libertarian-leaning progressives. I tape-recorded it, but never transcribed it (gotta get a round tuit).

[jaqeboy]

As far as I am concerned, the authoritarians have done their best to corrupt the language. Why is "liberal" such a bad word? Look it up in your dictionary... I'd much rather be called a liberal than a conservative!

You and me, bro'