I think you are omitting the basic reasoning for the principles in the first place, which stems from one's ideology.

It all eventually comes back to assumptions and motivations. The problem I see with progressives is that they have motivations which are built on the accumulation of power and control. This is amply demonstrated by looking at the effects of any of their policies. Ignore the rhetoric and the arguments entirely and solely focus on the results. The rhetoric is a sales pitch designed to appeal to the temporary emotions.

The larger problem is that when viewed as a basis for society, these ideals crumble and fail under their own weight every time they are used! History itself is replete with examples - "Atlas Shrugged" notwithstanding.

and worse, the Marxists keep saying it and now the liberal/progressives have come to believe and repeat it, too!

It's ok Robbie. Why does it matter that the person I'm talking with understands me? Or why did I care for the girl? What is your question, Robbie?

No, no. I reject that premise. I think policies work or fail without regard to ideology. I think the left/right conflict is an easy narrative for people paid to write articles and do talk shows and people running for office to latch onto, so they often do. People who latch onto them aren't doing it maliciously.

Thanks friend:) I encountered a lady at about 10:30pm inside a McDonald. She had no cellphone. She had rings in her ears. She looked like a hippie of the 70s. She told me she was on her way to a yoga school. She came from British Columbia. She was waiting for a bus for an hour. No bus. I volunteered to help her out, not because she was pretty (she was a little pretty) but because I admired that part of her that saw her crazy situation as an "adventure." Problem: she didn't know how to get to the yoga place. She said it was in Playa del monte. I checked on that at home. No absolute listing. I needed an address. I tried to call a cab for her. The cabbie didn't want to come out to that McDonalds without knowing my phone number, which might have meant that had she whimsically decided to not wait there, he would try to get $15 from me for his troubles! It was when I left her that I realized I wish we had exchanged names and contact info. I would have valued her as a friend, but not as a girlfriend. I thought of her as having her head up in the clouds, but with little practical sense. I wanted to help her. But I felt no responsibility for her. 20 years ago or so, I might have felt guilty if I didn't help her. Not now. I'm more integrated deep down as an Objectivist now.
I am wondering, as I think aloud, if you had any experiences like mine. I'm not talking about absolute similarity, but rather some degree of convergence so that you know, emotionally, what I am talking about.
Best always,
Mike

From 40 years ago: "Why," someone asked a friend of mine, "did you major in botany, of all things?" "It was the only non-Marxist department I could find at U-Mass that I was interested in," she replied.

So later I mentioned that remark to someone else, who proudly stated, "Why yes! The University of Massachusetts has some of the finest Marxist scholars in the world!"

These scholars and their intellectual heirs are still busy disassembling the United States, for its crime of having been successful. I think that the underlying scheme in American education is Fabian socialism, known as Progressivism in the US. Nearly all American educators understand the Progressive agenda to be correct, even if they feel themselves to be conservatives.

"Now, in non-fiction!"

Look at the title of the course: “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.” Does anyone really expect anything close to Objectivism or reality to come from a course with that handle? When I was in college, I had to pick and elective, but, I asked to sit in on a sociology class before deciding. An hour later, I went and signed up for Modern Art History. I knew I would be fuming every day if had had to listen to that stuff, and the above class would be even worse. By the time you sign up for a course like that, you have given up all expectation of hearing truth or reason. Want to know the truth about that subject, spend some time with a probation officer, and you will learn a lot more about the demographic you will serve. I talked regularly with such a man when I was a reporter, and he let me sit in on meetings at times. That was definitely an education about how others live, think and try to manipulated others. Luckily, for him and his parolees, he did not buy into that liberal crap. He tried to get responsible behavior from them, but it was no easy task. His motto was "No excuses."

Well said.

I have never heard a conservative say that people are basically lazy. I have heard them say that if they are given money for doing nothing, many people tend to do nothing or less. Alternatively, if they are not paid for doing nothing, they tend to work more and better, so as to earn what they need and want. That text book does not look at the other side of the issue, as I just mentioned it.

Conservatives do not believe that everyone can do anything if they only try hard enough and are persistent. They believe that most people, if they are not incentivized to do little, will work hard. Some people really have serious physical, mental, or emotional handicaps. Conservatives never deny that some people need to be helped in order to live decently. They tend to feel that people who make money on their own have a responsibility to such unfortunates.

Personally I don't see that I have any such responsibility. That is one reason I am an Objectivist. I like to help folks at times, but I don't feel like I'm worth less as a person if I choose not to help those folks.

That text book does not look at the issues from the viewpoints of an actual Conservative, much less an Objectivist. That's why I despise it.

Here is an example of classic progressive thought:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/...

Here we have the Mayor of New York City proposing a set of rules, but not applying those same consequences to himself. Is this just a case of mistaken causal vectors or just blatant hypocrisy?

"there are no shortage of people who make moral decisions on each issue or circumstance as if each circumstance must be examined afresh."

Precisely. It stems from a lack of fundamental values. That is not to say that those who have firm convictions don't ever re-evaluate their position, but if one is constantly evaluating every decision, what one is actually doing is attempting to redefine his or her moral position at every encounter. To me, this sounds mentally exhausting and prone to error.

there are no shortage of people who make moral decisions on each issue or circumstance as if each circumstance must be examined afresh. When To the point where you have no idea how someone is going to look at any situation. When you point out the contradictions, they will always point to the exceptions and never the norm. "But, what if..." It's like their values are completely detached from the reality of the world. It's like putting the raw meat in the same grocery bag as the fresh vegetables.

I think the perceived flaw in Robbie's statement is that sometimes it is difficult to tell his sarcasm from his logical deductions.

I would state it differently: there are systems of law that are derived from the standpoint of universal law - where everyone is subject to the same laws and that the laws exist independent of any governing body - and arbitrary law - where each individual determines their own moral standards. They are philosophically contradictory models. By virtue of our ability to determine our own course, we independently choose the kind of morality we pursue, so in this we all make an individual moral decision on the type of moral compass to employ. Once we select either the relative of universal model, (most choose the universal one) we must then delve into all of the many versions of the universal theory - which is where any particular moral stance (such as one's position on the punishment for murder) comes into play.

I don't think "arbitrary" is the right word to use because it indicates a lack of a thoughtful position, but for some people it probably applies. ;)

I mostly agree. But the source of law aspect has profound implications and results that extend all the way down the train of thought. It is a fundamental motivation and position to start from that results in vastly divergent views.

So are you advocating that progressive policies (i.e. a policy promoted by progressives that is opposed by conservatives) do in fact bring society forward? Let's test your hypothesis. Please present one policy you feel fits this category, its initiator, and the results you feel merit consideration as "bringing society forward". Please be sure to include the costs of those policies in addition to their benefits.

The unstated premise is that progressive policies don't work, so those who advocate them do so out of malice or self interest. If progressive policies have brought society forward and led to things we take for granted, the whole question falls apart. It would be like asking why do people promote rightwing or libertarian policies despite the damage they do. It makes no sense. Clearly these philosophies aren't right or wrong, so it's nonsense to wonder why people still use them despite the fact that some people have branded them evil.

Not necessarily. The trick is in enforcement of IP - not the declaration. The guidelines set up by government are for the identification and legal protection of IP. Are the current laws regarding such in need of an overhaul? One can very easily argue yes. But to call them entirely a product of the state I don't think is entirely justified as the process and methods mirror that for other laws.

Now if they start declaring all IP property of the State (like they do in China), one can assuredly assert IP as an artificial creation of the State.

There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the ability to think, wisdom is the ability to recognize cause and effect. Neither is really indicated by a college degree.

The quandary regarding progressives boils down to a fundamental premise: do progressives look out for the best interest of society. We can take either the optimistic view and accept their claims that they do despite the results of their policy decisions, or we can take the more realistic view: that they make policy decisions with regard only for their own personal interest. The proof of the detrimental effects to society of progressive policies extends through history. Yet they continue to make the same flawed policy decisions. As a result, one can only reasonably conclude that either progressives arrogantly believe that they are different than previous progressive decision-makers and that somehow they can divorce cause and effect for their decisions, or that they are liars when they claim to be making decisions that benefit others. I can see no other explanation (barring extreme incompetence and ignorance).

Are you saying a third of the population, including some educated intelligent people, believe that action have no consequences? Are are you just saying that people can't agree on the causal vectors?

The way you describe it, conservatives and liberals are not very different except for the source of law: liberals says gov't, conservatives say gods, and liberarians say reason. Since human beings are doing the reasoning, run the gov't, and run religion, these all seem like the same thing, at least based on your explanation condensed to fit in this forum.

There are two variables in this: 1. What does liberal/conservative mean? and 2. What are their traits/goals?

The joke about conservatives is their for law and order, mainly order not so much law.

I'm around people who mostly think their "liberal". I don't think they want to tax, fine, and outlaw things as you say. But I question if they really are liberals or if liberalism is even real. It is just something everyone says to avoid being on the wrong side of a shouting match that exists only on TV and radio?