Robert Reich posted on Facebook
What’s the difference between progressives and their
opposite – regressives? Progressives believe we’re all in it together: We all
benefit from public investments in schools and
health care and infrastructure, and from efforts to reverse climate change. We
all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street
and big business, and a progressive tax system. Progressives worry that the
middle class is shrinking, a quarter of our nation’s children are poor, and the
rich and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy. The
issue for progressives isn’t the size of government; it’s who government is
for: It should be for all of us, not a privileged few.
Regressives take the opposite positions. They believe
each of us is on his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or
infrastructure are better done through private individuals and corporations
than government. Safety nets coddle the weak. Those who are losing ground lack
adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for
themselves. Those who are thriving are entitled to their rewards; constraints
and taxes on them only reduce their incentive to invest. They have every right
to their disproportionate power and influence. Regressives want to take us back
to 19th century social Darwinism
Rebuttal: point by point.
Progressives believe we’re all
in it together.
Of course. But what is the order of priority: Most Conservatives choose Self –
Family – Neighbor – Community – State – Nation – World in that order. The Religious
ones include God in there somewhere.
“Ask
NOT what your county can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
What
I cannot do by myself, I will seek help from family to do.
What
they cannot help with, I will seek help from my neighbor to do. This was the
genesis of the many benevolence societies, which Big Government and
progressives have waged ideological war against.
If
my neighbor needs help, I will help to the best of my ability and means.
What
my neighbor cannot help with, I will seek help from my community and the Free
Market to do.
Government’s
Job is to do for the various levels from Community and above what cannot be or
should not be profitably done by the Free Market or individual. In regards to the
relationship between Government and Free Market: it should be more in line of
Referee, enforcing the agreed upon rules of the Market thought the Courts and
Judicial Authority, rather than riding roughshod and trying to control it by
bureaucratic regulation. Government is best kept Local, with those governed
involved in the governing.
A
Moral People are internally regulating, and do not usually need external
regulation beyond Religion. Immoral People, on the other hand . . .
We all benefit from public
investments in schools.
Where
is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?
This
is best done at the Self – Family – Neighbor – Community level, rather than any
higher one. Big Government need not to be involved.
We all benefit from public
investments in health care.
Where
is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?
The
Free Market was doing a good job before Big Government got involved.
Some things require more than one is immediately able to pay. the Free Market had ways of handling that.
Some
things are better done outside of the profit motive. But there are non-profit
organizations in the Free Market that can take care
of these. Also in-industry certifying bodies can provide internal rules and penalties. Big Government need not get involved beyond refereeing the Immoral and Criminal.
We all benefit from public investments in infrastructure.
Agreed. Local Government and the Free Market working together
usually produce the best results. Granted there are some places where extra
help is needed, or the project is larger than the immediate Local Government
can handle. Then apply to the appropriate closest level of Government.
We all benefit from public
investments in efforts to reverse climate change.
Where is it said this is Government’s responsibility or
job?
I seriously doubt Man-Caused-Climate Change to begin with. On a small
scale where man has built up significant areas of increased thermal mass – i.e.
large stone and glass and steel cities – or where Man has carelessly caused
damage in some areas, yes there is some. But global scale? No. The cycles of
the climate are driven by much more than Man could affect.
Is this claimed damage as large as the Man-Caused-Climate Change
advocates say? I do not believe so.
Is there good to be done? Of course. Clean is profitable.
I think this is one more wedge issue used
by those seeking for power over their fellow man.
We all do better with strong
safety nets.
Where
is it said this is Government’s responsibility or job?
Free
Market Non-Profit Benevolent and Religious Organizations handled this well,
until Big Government muscled in and took over most of the market.
Further,
Big Government has changed this from a safety net program that helps people get through hard times and recover from disasters, to a
Dependency-in-Perpetuity Big Government Program that encourages abrogation of
work ethic and responsibility.
We all do better with reasonable
constraints on Wall Street.
Making a profit is not evil. Government’s
Job should be more in line of Referee, enforcing the agreed upon rules of the
Market thought the courts, rather than riding roughshod and trying to control
it. Further it has a job of enforcing society’s laws upon law breakers.
A
Moral People are internally regulating, and do not usually need external
regulation beyond Religion. Immoral People, on the other hand . . .
We all do better with reasonable
constraints on big business,
Yes,
Moral Constraints on the individual. See above, and below.
We all do better with a
progressive tax system.
A
Progressive Tax System is not designed to generate revenue to fund the
Government. It is designed to artificially constrain wealth creation and
generation, and to redistribute said wealth from the producers to the
non-producers. It robs the individual of the incentive to work hard by
eliminating the profit motive, and thus destroys the work ethic.
A
Flat Rate Tax System with equal application to the whole population, and no
extra regulations and ‘loop holes’ is preferable.
Personally
I would do away with withholding and require citizens to pay on their own.
Progressives worry that the
middle class is shrinking.
The
best cure for a shrinking middle class is manifold.
First:
Shrink Big Government, and return as much of the Government’s activities to the
local or otherwise appropriate level as possible. Thus let the economy loose to
grow, enlarge and enrich the middle class.
Eliminate
as many redundant and obsolete regulations and rules as possible. This is done
by auditing the entirety of the Code, and passing through Congress appropriate
legislation to be enacted by the President to eliminate said pieces.
Auditing
all regulations of all departments and likewise removing redundancies, obsolesce,
overreach, loop holes, etc. This done by Congress passing appropriate
legislation, which is then enacted by the President.
Eliminate
as many redundant, unnecessary, and obsolete programs and departments as possible. This is done
by consolidation of existing departments and programs to the appropriate level
of Government, and elimination of departments and programs by Congress passing
appropriate legislation, enacted by the President, by other appropriate levels
acting accordingly.
Require
Federal departments to justify their existence, new regulation and budgets
before the Congress, and their activities before the Executive and Judicial
branches. Echo this across the other levels.
Second:
Eliminate the Progressive Tax System and all other taxes; individual, corporate,
death, etc. Install a Flat Rate Tax System based on two main principles. The
first principle is allowing generation, control and distribution of wealth by
individuals in the Free Market. The second principle is funding the Government,
with a minimum of deficit, by equal percentage contribution of all governed.
Third:
Control the National Border and manage the incoming and outgoing population of
foreign nationals. In doing this, make the system as simple as possible, as
friendly as possible, and easier and more desirable to deal with than not.
Forth:
Restore the Free Market, with appropriate Governmental Refereeing. Allow
refereeing of commerce to return to the appropriate other levels of government.
Referee international trade, applying appropriate tariffs and trade barriers
and restrictions. Protect intellectual property and rights thereunto.
Fifth:
Encourage the transition of Unions (organizations that pit management vs.
employees, shrinking the knowledge and job pool) to Guilds (organizations that
encourage management and employees to work together, increasing the knowledge
and job pools.)
Sixth:
any and everything else not covered here that encourages freedom,
responsibility and independence.
Progressives worry that a
quarter of our nation’s children are poor.
Agreed.
Remove all Big Government blocks to economic growth, all incentives to
government dependence, all governmental incentives against and disincentives
toward the formation of the traditional nuclear family.
Encourage
family and parental responsibility, and work ethic. Everything else will happen
by matter of course.
Progressives worry that the rich
and privileged have become powerful enough to undermine our democracy.
Class Warfare. Since
the Progressives generally ARE the rich and privileged in the public eye, and
since a Democracy was generally defined by Aristotle as a government composed of a lot of
people working in their own interests instead of the interests of their
neighbors, and an Oligarchy as a few working in their own interests instead of
the interests of their neighbors; I agree heartily.
Solution:
get the not-rich, not-privileged, not-in-the-public-eye reengaged in their
Republic (generally defined by Aristotle as a lot of people working in the interests of
their neighbors). Restore the republic, as narrated above, and the rich and privileged (i.e. Progressives) will be compelled by societal pressure to a more benign position within it.
Gee,
that sounds to me like the origin of the Tea Party. (Decide for yourself it that is where its at today.)
The issue for progressives isn’t
the size of government; it’s who government is for: It should be for all of us,
not a privileged few.
Of
course, the issue is not size of government. Many progressives see one of the
functions of government as ‘make work for the masses.’
Aristotle defined a Republic as a lot of people working in the interests of
their neighbors.
Local
Government is the best government: it is most reactive to those it is empowered
by and least likely to be corrupted in the long term, particularly when
everyone takes their turn in it.
A
large centralized distant government is not responsive to those it is empowered
by, is prone to long term corruption, and comparatively few ever work in it.
History shows it becomes for only the privileged few.
If progressives were truly worried about solving class warfare, they should stop stirring it up.
Regressives take the opposite
positions.
Regressives,
sure. Conservatives as far as I know them, do not.
They believe each of us is on
his or her own: Investments in schools or health care or infrastructure are
better done through private individuals and corporations than government.
See
above, lest I repeat my self.
Safety nets coddle the weak.
Safety
nets are necessary. Their conversion to a Hammock and Dependency-in-Perpetuity is to be discouraged,
shamed, and avoided.
Those who are losing ground lack
adequate education and ambition, and must learn to take responsibility for
themselves.
Many
of these are victims of generations of:
Big
Governmental economic and social interference;
ill-conceived
social engineering that has destroyed the traditional nuclear family for
generations;
institutional progressive indoctrination against the history and traditional values that
underpin moral individuals, families and society.
Those who are thriving are
entitled to their rewards; constraints and taxes on them only reduce their
incentive to invest.
Since
the Progressives generally ARE the rich and privileged in the public eye, they
project or are assigned the attitude that they are entitled to their rewards.
Since human nature is to retain what you have, of course they resist and avoid
anything that reduces their riches and privileges.
The 'thriving' that I know are working their fingers to the bone just to keep financially afloat and independent.
They have every right to their
disproportionate power and influence.
Do
they? The power to govern devolves from the consent of the governed. I never gave consent to the governmental overreach and expansion that is going on.
No
one has an inborn right to govern.
No
one has divine right that was not publicly installed by God. There were many
that claimed this by theater, but God has not made much loud noise on this
front is some time. He allows men to create political constructs, but will hold
them accountable for their individual behaviors.
Regressives want to take us back
to 19th century social Darwinism.
As opposed to the 21st century social Darwinism? I
though Darwinism was part of the religious catechism of Progressives, and their
related collectivist cousins Socialists and Marxists; as part of their
rejection of revealed religion and God.
To
summarize Conservatives as I know them, on these principles:
We
are in this world together, with the following priorities: Self – Family –
Neighbor – Community – State – Nation – World in that order, with none left out.
The Religious ones include God in there somewhere.
Individual Liberty, Responsibility and Independence of
Moral Individuals are of greatest value.
The
Free Market is not synonymous with greed (to say it is, is to perpetuate a lie); personal investment does reflect
personal priorities. When paying for schools and education as in all other
areas of the Free Market, where the money goes should be dependent on the
quality of the education received. Health Care is the responsibility of the
individual and family, and best handled in the Free Market; this is not to
exclude others getting involved as invited, or required. Infrastructure is a joint
responsibility, with the Government contracting with the Free Market to maintain
and expand it as needed. Safety nets that help people get through hard times and recover from disasters are
desirable, but dependence on them is not. The Free Market where participated in
by Moral Individuals is self regulating, because Moral Individuals are self
regulating.
Moral Individuals will look after the poor, and seek to
help each other elevate themselves so far as the individual is able and willing.
This leads to a minimally sized Republican Government doing only its assigned jobs,
built from the Local level through ascending levels of society where everyone
is invested, interested and equal before the law.
