As a Progressive Anything

I'm a Progressive, support a strong state, Keynesian economics, free healthcare, and many other very Liberal and Progressive ideals. I believe Conservatism, Conservative traditional values holds us back.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PvxPnOljj2s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>holds us back.

From what?

From Progressing. We Progressed beyond Feudalism, we Progressed beyond Theocracy, we Progressed beyond the Gilded age. It was conservatives who tried to keep us in those stages every chance they could.

How exactly does wanting low taxes and small gov hold us back?

Because government is what holds our society together. Only through a democratically elected government can TRUE change happen. Free markets do not work and left to their own devices go full retard.

>Keynesian economics
So why are we still in debt? Shouldn't the multiplier effect have caused enough growth to pay off the borrowing?

So you don't want kings or priests in charge but the state being in power is fine?
The state is made up of rich pedophiles as well, you realize

Yo, OP. How do you feel about Scandinavia?

Progressives have also pushed for state controlled communism.

That was a murderous fucking disaster.

Liberalism is just feminine morality wrapped in political coating. Its sloppy and unbalanced and its coming apart before everyones eyes as we speak.

The state is at least somewhat accountable to the people being democratic. There are still civil issues yes, but it's better than a "divinely" appointed king, a bishop, or a corporate overlord ruling everything. Most politicians come from working class families (the Trumps and Bushes are exceptions) and at least have SOME understanding of issues

Two reasons, one would be endless wars which do not increase GDP on a REAL level, two would be Bush tax cuts which caused the deficit to explode again, and three would be the recession. Budgets do balance themselves unless the deficit keeps being widened by tax cuts, revenue increases, or recessions.

I think Norway and Finland are great, Sweden is a a failure of a country though. I also think political correctness is ruining their social culture and it's very feminized, but politically it's doing well.

Liberalism and Progressivism are at odds, you mong. You are literally forcing your progress delusions down people's throats, which is not pretty liberal.

>Progressives have also pushed for state controlled communism.
No they haven't actually

>Liberalism is just feminine morality wrapped in political coating. Its sloppy and unbalanced and its coming apart before everyones eyes as we speak.
Not being an evil dictator who lets people die is now "feminine morality".

>Only through a democratically elected government can TRUE change happen
How about you change shit in your life, I do the same, and guess what...change will fuckin' happen.

Holds us back from what?
What exactly is your end game?

Do you want all humans cared for a by global nanny state that does everything necessary for him? Such a world where the state controls that many aspects of life not only destroys the prospect of individuality and self-sustinence obsolete, it would also render the use of free-will less and less useful as time went on. This would progesss to the point that all men would be nothing but slovenly degenerates seeking nothing but pleasure with no self-introspection.

This big state would ensure all live, but it would crush the human spirit and human dignity. At that point, could you even call us human anymore?

Sorry I triggered you, didn't realize making a thread on Sup Forums was "forcing delusions down people's throats"

How so? How will society change just because we do when the elites control everything??

That's a very good point actually. I mean what would be the end, with all our needs met what would the point of life be?

that's nice but why do you support third-world immigration and white guilt politics, no one actually cares about the other shit.

wow nice bait

If you really believe any of this I just can't talk to you.

Its not that i'm not up for the debate. But If your honest opinions are these then I just don't feel like hauling the amount of information and argument into this thread to debunk it.

>Free markets do not work

are you like 17 or something?

We don't. Progressives were the ones who got the Immigration Act of 1924 passed.

youtube.com/watch?v=PvxPnOljj2s

This video explains it pretty briefly.

>Not being an evil dictator

You're a statist who actually says that unironically.

>Budgets do balance themselves
Good troll m8. 8/10

>Gadsben flag
You're a terrible troll

I'm 18, but I know you aren't. Because if you went to school and learned basic history you'd know free markets fail or lead to feudalism.

Ok, so you're using it in a different sense than usual. In that case, I would probably agree with you on everything.

This is a very pertinent question indeed. Look, I see the morality of your ideals, I really do, but have you considered the fact that human greatness and achievement is forged in the fires of life, however tumultuous it might be?

I like to see human life like a bow. The more tension you put on the string, should you choose to fire, the farther the arrow of your longing will go. What you propose seeks to take the tension out of all men’s bows and reduce them to something less than men. All the peaks and valleys that make mankind what it is today is the result of inequality. And yes, if you take away all inequality it would help everyone, but you must admit that there would something lost. I don’t know if humanity can live without that something.

>budgets don't balance themselves
You're a troll, and are being banned.

It's really the same ideology, just painted differently.

Prehaps this is why space exploration and all that must happen. Humans must be CONSTANTLY advancing and looking for goals or stuff.

Another solution I just thought about would be chemical satisfication. Have a society with chemicals in the water supply that stimulate the part of your brain that deals with satisfaction and fulfillment making us all happy despite achieving nothing.

well seeing as Progressivism before we got flooded with Jews was explicitly racist, pro-eugenics, pro-environment, pro-labor, etc. and now it's pro-third worldiziation, militantly antiracist, anti-labor, pro free-trade with impoverished shitholes, etc. it's not really the same ideology at all. we've been co-opted by Jewish influence after WW2.

80% of hospitalization is self-inflicted (i.e fatties with the beetus and heart disease who couldn't put their donuts down). Tell me, why should my tax money pay to keep these irresponsible people alive?

In a Progressive world the state would be very involved with the fitness of the individual, that wouldn't happen.

I mean progressive as in the idealism of Eisenhower and Huxley and all those guys.

yeah I think the Progressivism OP is talking about would be de facto closer to Teddy Roosevelt.

We are progressing towards civil war couched by economic downturn. Maybe it's a good idea to practice conserving what we have before we lose it all eh faggot.

Lost me at Keynesian

As for your space exploration answer, I’d say that would be a good enough solution, but that only kicks the can down the road once we’ve explored and conquered all that we possibly could in the universe.

For your chemical answer, I think this goes back to what I was saying about my fear of men becoming less than men with their lack of higher goals. I think this would actually be worse. This is something dystopian and would certainly not be desirable. Also, if people are de facto not allowed to be sad or have existential crises, could we even call ourselves men anymore, or would it just be the Happy Chemical saying (and I’m going to quote Nietzsche here) “‘we have invented happiness’ - say the last men, and blink”

Well I think Teddy was more Conservative. It's not just action, under action Teddy was progressive as he passed anti-corporate laws but he just saw that as a way to sustain American capitalism. Progressive idealism is based on search for a utopia.

How?

right but back then eugenics etc. were a key part of the utopianism. the modern anti-racist internationalism shit is purely a Jewish invention.

>As for your space exploration answer, I’d say that would be a good enough solution, but that only kicks the can down the road once we’ve explored and conquered all that we possibly could in the universe.
That's literally in billions of years though, we might be Gods by then

>For your chemical answer, I think this goes back to what I was saying about my fear of men becoming less than men with their lack of higher goals. I think this would actually be worse. This is something dystopian and would certainly not be desirable. Also, if people are de facto not allowed to be sad or have existential crises, could we even call ourselves men anymore, or would it just be the Happy Chemical saying (and I’m going to quote Nietzsche here) “‘we have invented happiness’ - say the last men, and blink”
I really don't know, that sounds just as dystopian to me as it does you but what other solution is there. I know we won't be exploring galaxies and shiieeet in our near future and when we become globalized and have a decent life what will there be? War kept people happy since it gave them a goal but there is no more war or anything like that today at least for most people.

I believe eugenics will be coming back with genetic engineering, and again liberals/progressives of our time will be supporting it.

they won't because it would imply mean things about Blacks, and Blacks are basically sacred under Jewish Progressivism. it also doesn't align very well with Marxist historical materialism :^(

I’ll give you an answer, although it’s a bit unsatisfying for me and it probably will be too. You got me thinking about Nietzsche now and his fear of the Last Men. Here’s a couple quotes and I promise, they’re worth the read:

A snippet from his Last Man speech:
“One still works, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey?
No Shepard, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: whoever feels different goes willingly into the madhouse.
‘Formerly all the world was insane,’ - say the subtlest of them, and blink.”

This is what he, and I as well, fear.

Here’s his “proposal” although it’s very non-doctrinal, it’s just how he hopes the world progresses. Personally I feel like it’s a tad harsh, but ultimately it’s purpose is to stop nihilism from consuming the world.

Another snippet:
“They should press on to the future on a thousand bridges and paths, and there should be more and more war and inequality among them: thus my great love makes me speak!
In their hostilities they shall become inventors of images and ghosts, and with those images and ghosts they shall yet fight the highest fight against one another!
Good and evil, rich and poor, and high and low, all names of the values: they shall be weapons and ringing signs that life must overcome itself again and again!”

What do you think? He says that life wants to build itself up to the heights and that conflict is what makes that climb meaningful. To take away all major sources of conflict would be to reduce the quality of life.

It would be like improving an imaginary painting. You could make it much more sharp (improving the lives of all equally), but it would lose its color the further you went. The painting of life right now is only semi sharp, but colorful nonetheless.

Spending your way to prosperity. Investments are one thing, but seriously?

You can just say you're retarded and save time