Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Progressive's, today, are far from being either liberal or progressive. I don't where they fit in terms of their political philosophy, except as anti-Republican.
Liberal =/= progressive. Something to ponder, Nazism and Fascism back in 1920s were progressive movements, so was the eugenics movement.
Today's Liberalism is not what it was. It is Progressiveism. Which is absolutely Totalitarian and oppressive. Hence things like more gun control laws and the concept of hate speech.
Yet Republicans want to control what people can do with their bodies, who they can love, and they want to lock people up for a plant. How is that not totalitarian?
Interesting perspective. I agree that government has a monopoly on force, and that there isn't much difference between the parties. But I don't see that we are trending toward totalitarianism. Can you give examples that have occurred over the past, say 50 years? The media? Used to be be the media would not report that FDR had polio or JFK was having affairs. Now they feel more free to publish whatever, perhaps to a fault. What industries have been nationalized? USPS is no longer a govt agency but now a private business. I don't see the military policing civilian life today any more than they did in 1950. Any sppecific examples?
NFA of 1934. Apply a 200 dollar tax to suppressors short barreled shot guns short barreled rifles (post 1968 GCA) and machine guns.
It was to make ownership of machine guns discouraged and asininely unaffordable to the common man.
Because muh gangsters and Chicago typewriters.
How convienent... the guise-public safety.
Maxim and John Browning? If they were to do what they did back then today? They'd be felons. Plain and simple. Oh you manufactured a machine gun without paying for the ATFs FFL and SOT? You didn't pay the state department it's ITAR tax?
Pepper your Angus. You are going straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.
Know who can legally own a brand new manufactured machine gun?
.GOV and it's many bureaucracies and it's agents.
We the people? That's big time felony charges if caught. 10 years in Club Fed and 250k in fines.
Congress turned machine guns into a privilege.
They can collect a tax on NFA items.
Then along comes William Hughes. A scumbag Democrat from NJ who tagged onto FOPA of 1986 an amendment to ban production and consumption of a machine gun built after May 19th 1986... The charge? Not paying the tax.
Treasury dept can collect the tax. Hughes amendment prevents the tax being collected on new ones.
Now apply that to say... abortion.
Charge doctors an ITAR tax.
Require them to get a comparable license to an FFL02/07 and charge an SOT (special occupation tax)
Keep a record of all medical professionals and patients seeking abortion regardless the cause of seeking one.
Charge the patients a tax to seem unaffordable to the average person. They have to undergo a background check which takes 6-18 months to complete before the tax stamp is issued to the patient.
Then. In a few years?
Stop production of new tax stamps. Patients may transfer their abortion tax stamp. Just the same as a Form 4 transfer for machine guns.
Now you'll see people selling their abortion for 10s of thousands of dollars. But the .gov gets its transfer tax paid to the according regulating bureaucracy.
Voting? We can do the same with voting. Can do the same with any other civil liberty under the guise of public safety to expand .gov bureaucracy and power.
It's not anarchist to point this out. It's anti corruption and abuse of .govs power. Governments job is not self serving. Yet through the years? It has been. Expansion of bureaucracy/authority and implementation of regulations which limit and restrict as well as add arbitrary unnecessary expense to the private sector with funding required in the form of taxes. Paying for ones demise is what it really is.
I grew up and lived in NY. I've seen firsthand what intrusive and wasteful spending via the government looks like. Not a fan. At all. Regardless what is claimed and how its done with the best of intentions.
To view government and democracy as the end all be all is laughable at times. Congress? That's politics for profit. Kabuki theater. Only to keep we the people angry at each other and not the turds in cheap suits responsible for restricting limiting and dictating life to everyone. While they continue to line their pockets.
Another form of intrusion? TSA. I won't fly unless it's an absolute emergency. Why support something I vehemently disagree with? Why?
Another one that's LOL worthy. No child left behind and 0 tolerance policy at public schools. More on that later...
I owe I owe. It's back to work I go.
NFA of 1934. Apply a 200 dollar tax to suppressors short barreled shot guns short barreled rifles (post 1968 GCA) and machine guns.
It was to make ownership of machine guns discouraged and asininely unaffordable to the common man.
Because muh gangsters and Chicago typewriters.
.........
Another form of intrusion? TSA. I won't fly unless it's an absolute emergency. Why support something I vehemently disagree with? Why?
.
OK, I was looking for more recent examples. Because the congress passed a law in 1934 to allow taxation of guns doesn't exactly make me feel like I'm in a repressed totalitarian state, but it's a matter of perspective I suppose. TSA? Well, I wouldn't fly if they didn't have TSA. Maybe we should have separate TSA and non-TSA flights, so that those who wish to take their chances on getting blown up can do so.
No, true classic liberalism isn't. the terms have been literally hijacked the last few years. I cringe when people use the term liberal because they mostly aren't using it correctly.
This far leftist progressive approach is what is leaning more toward the totalitarianism side of thing. The far far right potentially as well.
OK, I was looking for more recent examples. Because the congress passed a law in 1934 to allow taxation of guns doesn't exactly make me feel like I'm in a repressed totalitarian state, but it's a matter of perspective I suppose. TSA? Well, I wouldn't fly if they didn't have TSA. Maybe we should have separate TSA and non-TSA flights, so that those who wish to take their chances on getting blown up can do so.
And there it is. Feel.
It's a constitutional right. Not a privilege. Taxes turn rights into privileges to those who can afford them. But of course, it doesn't affect solely you so it doesn't matter. It should though. It sets the precedent to restric, ban, limit, and make a felony out of any other civil liberty that you take for granted...
Perhaps security is the responsibility of the air ports and the air lines, not of .gov at the expense of the tax payer, but at the expense of the air traveler...
Then there's DHS NSA... list goes on of alphabet soup bureacracies that adds to operational expense of government. Funny. If I ran my business the way government did, I'd be broke, possibly guilty of extortion, among other things...
There's one that should make both liberals and conservatives angry, DHS.
Quote:
Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism
Yet... an alphabet soup bureacracy tasked with preventing domestic emergencies particularly terrorism, hasn't prevented any mass murderer/active shooter, bombers (Austin TX and MAGA bomber) so on and so forth. Pulse nightclub in Orlando could have fallen under their purview...
So... you have how many agencies whose purpose is to respond prevent and prepare for domestic emergencies? Another needed to be added? And yet... more are needed because... terrorism?
Democrats hated GWB. I don't know why... he's expanded government... that's the democrats play book. More government will solve the problems! Surely it will! Just another set of .gov employees to pay, provide dental plans and pensions for.
What does .gov produce? Nothing. Regulations and laws. Again. Nothing. Are you getting your money's worth?
I don't think so. Not at all.
Trillions in debt and really nothing to show for it except worship for the almighty .gov, kabuki theater on Capitol Hill, and millions of Americans identifying with the turds in cheap suits, expressing hatred against one another and seeking to use "law" and "regulations" to further their agenda... where 1 side wins. 1 side loses. In the end we all lose.
With all due respect, that is one of the most absurd premises I've heard.
Look up totalitarian in the dictionary. There should be a picture of Trump who is the most totalitarian and autocratic (and unfortunately, the most ignorant) president we have had in modern history.
Liberalism in the sense of John Locke's political philosophy was the opposite of totalitarianism, it referred to man's natural rights and freedoms. It is often paired with equality as another of man's rights but it is really at odds with equality since equality is not a natural state and requires the state to enforce it by taking away liberties.
The end result is that liberty (or liberalism) is in tension with equality and to a great extent this is one of the bigger differences between Democrats and Republicans. But the terms have been switched around - Republicans tend to emphasize classic liberalism, i.e., the rights of the individual, while Democrats tend to emphasize equality even at the expense of individual rights.
But there is no true liberal state in existence. All states have taken some of our liberties, but totalitarian states take most of them.
So, to answer OP's question: Classic liberalism is definitely not totalitarianism. The modern Democratic party is not totalitarian. That's crazy to even imply such a thing. North Korea is totalitarian.
Liberalism in the sense of John Locke's political philosophy was the opposite of totalitarianism, it referred to man's natural rights and freedoms. It is often paired with equality as another of man's rights but it is really at odds with equality since equality is not a natural state and requires the state to enforce it by taking away liberties.
The creatures of the nature are obviously not equal, but in order to create a more perfect union, the founders wanted citizens to be equal, which is why the declaration of independence says;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
But of course even then slaves were not considered equal, so they had trouble living up to their own standards. I suppose, there is always room for improvement, but they were on the right track.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
