I'll admit that I'm not totally up to speed on the goals of the Progressives, but on the surface I'd have to disagree with you (shocking isn't it?).

While your statement may be true when confined to issues involving sexual orientation, on the whole I think it may be incorrect. I've seen a number of progressives (self identified which may or may not be accurate) advocate stricter gun control or outright prohibitions, lobbied for laws restriction the legal use of force in self defense, increased taxation for social prgrams, & a few other things that when combined would create just as much dissatisfaction (if not moreso) than a conservative agenda would.

Course as I said I'm not totally hip on what the official agenda of the Progressive movement is. I'm just going by bits & pieces of what I've seen coming from self titled Progressives. I'd welcome correction if I'm in error.

Publicola, your problem is an excess of focus. The question I'm considering is not gun control (and if it were you'd be no more happy). It it what is the best general approach to governance.

But since you bring it up, gun control is a good example of the problem. When the assault weapon ban was up for renewal, 68% of Americans (including 32% of NRA members) was in favor of renewal. Now, irrespective of the merit of such a ban, 68% is a hell of a lot closer lot a mandate than 52%.

You would find more support for gun ownership if you weren't so absolute about the "right" to own absolutely anything capable of killing folks.

And as for increasing taxation for social plans, it's that of give up the social plans…and the only way you'll get the population to give them up is to trick them. And the public has already acknowledged they'd accept taxes in exchange for services.

P6,

No, I don't think it's a question of my focus. I mentioned the gun control thing as well as the taxation thing to highlight a few (but not all) areas where I think a good number of people would be dissatisfied with what I assume to be Progressive ideas if they were implemented.

As to the best general approach to governence, the Progressive way would be no better than most other ways; a sizable chunk of the populace wouldn't be happy (as I tried to illustrate with the examples I listed in the last comment). I think you know how I think on this: the best government governs least. But even with that approach a lot of people would be dis satisfied.

Now as for mandates & popularity - let's continue with the example of the support for the "assault weapons" ban. I assume (but could be wrong) that you've been over to my site a time or two & probably read something about the "assault weapons" ban. Hopefully enough to know of its pragmatic problems in addition to its philosophical & legal ones. But then again perhaps not, or perhaps you don't totally trust me on the facts of the matter. just for the moment assume I'm correct at least on the factual points.

The "assault weapons" ban covered semi-automatics that weren't particularly powerful (most were underpowered for deer hunting & almost all the rest were weaker than the .30-30 winchester cartridge used in lever guns in the late 1800's). Further it simply covered new manufacture & the criteria was aesthetic rather than functional for determining what fell under the ban & what didn't.

Now of those 68% who supported the "assault weapons" ban, how many could have told you any of the above? How many could have explained what the ban covered & didn't cover? Now how many do you think assumed "assault weapon" was a powerful machine gun that only had martial purposes?

The support for the ban came through ignorance, not through reasoned thought & conclusion. Hell, I've argued with constitutional law professors that were pro-gun that thought the ban covered machine guns.

Now the particulars are just a concrete example of my main point (lest you think i'm focuising solely on the gun issue again) majority opinion is not always correct or even good.

Another example: in the 1820's how muhc of the population do you think would have supported slavery? How many would have thought of Black people as a lesser form of human than White people?

See what I'm getting at? There's a very good reason that we're not a Democracy. The majority does not always decide what's right or best for anyone even themselves. & majority support does not justify an abridgement of a person's Rights.

Now the best solution of course is to inform the people themselves of their errors (in regards to gun control, or slavery or any number of issues) rather than to accept the "will of the people" as an ireffutable "mandate" to go ahead with an idea that may be quite harmful.

Now about taxation for social plans - no, triking people isn't the only way to make them give all that up. A reasoned discourse can (& hopefully will one day) make people see the harm done by social programs fueled by taxation. Then again we come to Touqerville who said that any free society can only last until the public realizes it can vote itself benefits out of the general fund. Then it commits suicide & is followed by despotism. Unfortuantely I think he'll be more correct than I will, but who knows?

Just to be clear: it's not just about gun control, but about many things that I assume are on the Progrssive list of things to do. When combined they'll make a lot of people unhappy, just as you think a Conservative approach would cause unhappiness. But the number of people in support of any approach isn't always (or posisbly even usually) the best indicator that you're on the right track.

& btw, I argue quite a bit with pro-gun people who advise me to tone down in order to sway more people. I disagree (obviously) because I think I have a principly & pragmatically sound position. Most of the problem I have is in uneducating then reducating people about the nature of the items & the issue. You'd be surprised at how many self proclaimed pro-gun people don't know the difference between an "assault weapon" & a six shooter. (I exaggarate a bit, but perhaps not by much). So I understand what you're syaing about that & appreciate the advice, but I have some pretty strong reasons for not taking you up on it.

Now about taxation for social plans - no, triking people isn't the only way to make them give all that up. A reasoned discourse can (& hopefully will one day) make people see the harm done by social programs fueled by taxation.

You assume humans are rational actors. They are not. If humans were rational actors there would be no political parties.

But the number of people in support of any approach isn't always (or posisbly even usually) the best indicator that you're on the right track.

I grant that. The more subtle the problem, the more likely the majority of folks will get it wrong.

This is simple though. People want to live their lives as they see fit. Progressives policy would allow that for everyone. Conservative policy would make it illegal for a fraction of the citizenry.

P6,

      Unless I'm mistaken about what entails Progressive policy it would make an equal if not larger fraction of the populace unable to live their lives as they see fit.

Gun control, taxation for social programs, an increased dependence on government - am I mistaken to think that they are part of the Progressive goal?

Not that Consewrvative policy is any better in that regard (having everyone happy & content) but I don't think the Progressive view is advantageous in that way. Stick everyone in a Progressive world & you'll see as much disconent as you would if it wasa Conservtive world - albeit for different reasons.

Again this all hinges on my assumptions about Progressive goals & it (my assumption) may or may not be accurate.

Unless I'm mistaken about what entails Progressive policy it would make an equal if not larger fraction of the populace unable to live their lives as they see fit.

You are mistaken. Possibly not the way you think, though.

Gun control, taxation for social programs, an increased dependence on government - am I mistaken to think that they are part of the Progressive goal?

A solid majority of Americans support some form of gun control. That alone means it's not a problem. "Taxation for social programs"—setting aside for a moment that you've got a lot of assumed meaning in your phrasing—yes, progressive policy involves paying for the things you buy, and keeping the promises you've made. And your "increased dependance on government" line reminds me of this bit from The Onion:

Liberals Return To Sodomy, Welfare Fraud
BERKELEY, CA—No longer occupied by the 2004 election, liberals across the country have returned to the activities they enjoy most: anal sex and cheating the welfare system. "I've been so busy canvassing for the Democratic Party, I haven't had a single moment for suckling at the government's teat or no-holds-barred ass ramming," said Jason Carvelli, an unemployed pro-hemp activist. "Now, my friends and I can finally get back to warming our hands over burning American flags and turning kids gay." Carvelli added that his "number-one priority" is undermining the efforts of freedom-loving patriots everywhere.
10 November 2004

Just nonsense that only gets responded to because the rhetoric is so wide-spread.

By the way, "gun control" does not mean forbidding ownership. If you submit to a driver's licence, car registration and insurance you're already more registered than "gun control" would require you to be.

And at some point you can tell me what "social programs" are a problem so I can tell you my opinion of them.

P6,

      Solid majorities do not mean everything is cool with a proposal. As far as gun control goes it's wrong on two levels: pragmatically it's not effective at its stated goals (i.e. reducing the threat of harm to people) & principally it's veyr damaging (subjecting a Right to government control). Now most people who support some form of gun control do so for emotional rather than rational reasons. It sounds good when you say your intent is to keep gangsters & hitmen from having guns. But in reality it doesn't work like that & if the pros & cons were laid out for each type of gun control being proposed most people wouldn't be as supportive of it as they are. So a majority supporting it does not mean everything's cool. & unless we're talking unanimous (which by no means we are) then there'll be a chunk of the populace hindered from engaging in an activity that they'd otherwise engage in. That'd mean not everyone would be happy with it, & perhaps a large enough chunk to counter those who wouldn't be happy with some conservative goal or another.

taxing for social programs - it's a little different than paying for something you're buying, as not all (I'd assume most) social programs only benefit a subset of society. A lot of people, myself included, don't like the idea of having money stolen form us to pay for programs that we may or may not support. If you wish to talk of user fees, or some forms of taxation that could be avoided if one wished (say a sales tax on a particular type of item) then it's another story. But a lot of people are unhappy wiht the income the..er, tax system especially because it's used in part to pay for programs that some people don't want to pay for.

It's socialism. Now perhaps the majority doesn't recognize that &/or are cool with it, but a sizable minority don't like socialism in any (or at least most) forms. Hence the unhappiness factor again could approach levels of certain conservative ideas.

A side effect of many government programs is an increased dependence on government. Some moreso than others. Anytime you increase government dependence you increase government power & the potential for the government to do material harm. Some programs have increasing dependence as its main effect. The military & police come to mind foremost. Now most people don't have a problem wiht that, perhaps a very strong majority. But historically when a people rely on a subset of the populace for protection then there's a strong likelyhood that the subset in question will come to rule rather than protect the rest. Ceasar crossed the Rubicon didn't he? & human nature hasn't changed so much in the past 2,000 years that it couldn't happen again (figuratively of course).

Gun control - my main objction is to the prior restraint variety. In other words laws that ounish mere possession ro have requirements for mere possession or ownership. The car analogy - when you're 14 you can lay down the cash & buy a testorosa. No license required. No punishment for having said car on your property or driving it around your own property. With a gun you have ot be a certain age, fill out paperwork & wait for permission, then (depending on where you live) comply with laws about keeping it, using it & storing it. In some places possession in your home is forbidden (D.C.) or subject to expensive & onerous paperwork (NYC & Chicago). The only thing comparable to driving is getting a license ot drive on public streets. That can be compared to getting a license to carry concealed where they have those. & the process for getting a license to carry concealed is more expensive & time consuming that getting a drivers license, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Without going into too much detail the car v gun thing isn't as comparable as most would think on the surface. & the slippery slope is perhaps more in play with guns than anything else. Often it does lead to bans on all ownership. Look at England, or look at D.C.

The social programs that are a problem? Damn near all of them. Probably al of them, I just allow for one that I missed that may be okay. First of all any program that is used to justify the income theft known as our progressive income tax is automatically out. It's theft, whether condoned by the majority or not.

Lemme see - welfare programs; an ineffecient solution when the private sector (i.e. private charities) could address those needs better.

Social security: what better example of Marxisim? (from each according to his ability to each according to his needs). Again ineffecient at its stated goals. private investment would serve the retirees better.

Medicaid & various other medical programs: not only ineffecient but it serves to alter the rates that would be charged otherwise, as the medical field has to adjust to compensate for the distortion in the market caused by socialized medical care.

Excessive regulation of the economy: not only does it distort the market (usually but not always to our detriment) but it increasing government control in other areas. A side effect of socialism is the government having an increased ability to interfere with out personal lives (to varyin degrees). Often socilialism (& especially communism) leads to heinous governments because of the amount of power necessary to control an economy. The power temptation is usually too much for humans to withstand, so they use it.

Government sponsored educational programs: same as the medical situation - it's ineffecient & distorts the market. Privatization would acocmplish the goals better as well as (after a brief flux) lower the cost of education across the board.

Those are the highlights. In each you also have money taken out of my pocket to pay for things I don't agree with. & those are very simple generalizations of the problems with each. I spend most of my time & energy on the gun thing, & as such I probably can't give the same level of depth to the social reform issues such as government welfare/socialisim based programs. But in a nutshell those are the objections on the surface to most of the popular social prgrams we currently have.

Not to mention do you really think that the same people who brought you the uber effecient DMV are gonna do a good job with health care?

Now I don't expect you to agree with all (or perhaps any) of my assesments, but reasoned argument about differing opinions is not something I think either of us abhor.

Solid majorities do not mean everything is cool with a proposal.

It does, however, mean the proposal has a mandate, a stronger (and for that matter, more rational) mandate than the Conservative agenda as personified by Bush.

Now I should have known better than to as a Libertarian which social policies are problematic, but in all that you've written, you haven't mentioned anything that a progressive national policy would prevent you from doing. Which is the point here. I'm all for reasoned discussion so long as it's reasonably on topic.

P6,

       I'll try to be brief (yes i vaguely recall what that word means)

gun control of the prior restraint variety prevents people from caryring or in some cases owning guns whe they otherwise would.

The social programs are funded by taxation which as it currently stands takes money from my pocket that I wouldn't want to let go of to fund programs I don't agree with. Also it distorts the market & in many cases inflates prices. So while it doesn't prevent me from doing anything per se, it does make it more difficult as I have less cash to do it with & certain things are more expensive. & it does require me to do something which I may be opposed to (i.e. support a social program I disagree with).

So if what I've discussued is part of a Progressive agenda, then in those ways it does prevent people (in some cases a minority, in others a majority) from doing what they would do if those policies weren't in place, or in some cases forcing them to do what they otherwise wouldn't do.

& Bush - I wouldn't say he has much to do with conservative agendas. unless someone loks at him from the far left he's not really a conservative person. In some ways yes, but probably in most he's more moderate or centrist. He just has a lot of PR floating his way from A: republicans who want to shore up conservative support for him & B: democrats who see him as being far right because of their position on the far far left. But that's an aside.

I think my main point stands, that a progressive policy would make about as mny people unhappy as a conservative one, just in different ways. Not that I'm necessarily condemning progressives or conservatives, or supporting them. On certain issues I can agree with either. It's just that no matter what you do there will always be a significant segment of the population that is dissatisfied.

gun control of the prior restraint variety prevents people from carrying or in some cases owning guns whe they otherwise would.

Like those full-automatic jobs.

Yet even these laws don't obstruct any purpose you can speak of in public. Collecting, hunting, self-defense, hand-packing ammo, all of it can be done freely.

The social programs are funded by taxation which as it currently stands takes money from my pocket that I wouldn't want to let go of to fund programs I don't agree with. Also it distorts the market & in many cases inflates prices. So while it doesn't prevent me from doing anything per se, it does make it more difficult as I have less cash to do it with & certain things are more expensive. & it does require me to do something which I may be opposed to (i.e. support a social program I disagree with).

There's so much here, all conflated. I'm not clear on what a "social program" is because it sounds like everything.

I think I want to open a Libertarian discussion. I'm not interested in Ayn Rand, though. I wonder what kind of life you want to live and what you think it takes to make that life possible.

P6,

       I'm afraid Rand is an embedded part of Libertarianism. Not to the point of following her philosophy exactly, but a few of her central ideas are wrapped up in the big "L" word. Namely the concept that you own yourself.

& I don't mean this to be condescending but you have a lot to learn about gun control. It's not just banning belt fed machine guns (& even if it were that'd be objectionable) but banning possession of an object because you could potentially cause harm with it. D.C., NYC & Chicago are the worst cities in this country as far as self defense goes. In the former there's a de facto ban on possession of any working firearm in your home; in the latter two it's almost but not quite as bad. So collecting, hunting, self defense, etc... are hindered & in some cases prohibited depending on where you live. I admit I'm biased but if you really want to learn more about gun control I'll be happy to tell you what I know. I doubt you'd have trouble sorting the facts from my opions (which coincidentally overlap most of the time :D ) & anything I can do to let someone see exactly why us gun nuts have cause to be concerned I'll be happy to invest the time.

The life I want to live? I assume that was a question so I'll try to answer it. It'd scare you. I want to be free. In most societies the other word for this is "outlaw". Freedom is a scary thing but it's what I'd prefer. & no, I don't mean robbing & murdering at will; I mean doing whatever I please so long as it doesn't directly impair the equal Rights of another person. There's a lot of room for discussion on what that entails, but the gist is I want to keep money that I earn until I decide to part with it. Then I want to give it to whomever I choose for whatever purpose is agreed upon (no matter how close to an election it is). I want to own & carry whatever weapons I feel I need to w/o fear of prosecution. I want to travel w/o having to have any sort of permission slip on me (tried flying w/o I.D. lately?). I want to own property w/o having to pay fealty to anyone for it (once it's mine of course). In short, unless through negligence or maliciousness I harm or imperil another person I want to answer only to my God.

As for what it would take? That's a bit more complex but I think knocking the U.S. Code down to one thin volume would be a damned fine way to start. Eliminate most or not all of the laws on the federal, state & local level that don't primarily seek to protect the equal Rights of others; do away with "victimless crimes"; make prior restraint based laws a distant memory. None of those things will make anyone free (only the individual can find freedom for his/her self) but at least it'll make it easier to seek it & enjoy it if it's found.

In some places some of this is possible, but not all of it. In other places little of it is possible. I want freedom. The catch is I can't have it just for myself - well, not w/o avoiding that "outlaw" thing, so I have to try to make it possible for you as well. I'll never deny that if I fight for you to enjoy a Right it's at least in part because if you're denied it then I could be as well. But that's it; I just want to be free. It's improbable - hell, might even be impossible, but everyone has to have goals.

you have a lot to learn about gun control.

Not really. I know the laws that are out there, I really disagree with you about belt-loaded machine guns, and I insist you'd have less trouble if you had some sort of limit but you've already rejected that.

It'd scare you. I want to be free.

Ooga-booga.

Literally sounds like the Dark Ages in Europe. You don't need to change the law, you need to change the nature of humans.