Frankly Existential

Brief History & Criticisms

Progressivism has gone too far, or at least, too far in the wrong direction. The conception of the progressive movement had a somewhat noble basis. Originally beginning in the FDR administration, the progressives admittedly had a rational basis, being the will to restore the US to its former economic strength and bring prosperity to the American citizens. The nation was suffering, socially and economically, and the problem seemed hopeless. The Great Depression took its toll on everyone, even the wealthy as a result of the market plunging itself in the toilet. Roosevelt came in appearing as a savior to pull the nation out of the depression. His grand solution: spend even more money that the US didn’t have and prolong the depression by pushing the country billions of dollars more in debt. Spoiler alert: a further detriment to the US economy.

Roosevelt’s embrace of John Maynard Keynes’s economic philosophy led to his authorized spending of billions to expand the power of the federal government to create new agencies and institutions to regulate economic practices. This was largely done trying to reverse Hoover’s strategies to strengthen the economy that he claimed were more “free market”, though they were anything but. Hoover’s big failure was instituting price regulations on farmer products as an attempt to revive the dying farmer economy. Again, this intervention only made the issue worse. Roosevelt did things like this but on a larger scale under his “New Deal”. The last thing the country needed, in its worst economic state in history, was to spend more money. Agencies like the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), National Recovery Administration (NRA), and Farm Security Administration (FRA) were all organized to control prices, create government jobs, and regulate economic practices; three practices that time and time again destroy the national economy. Free trade was essentially abolished in agricultural practices, the farmers no longer had autonomy over their own businesses, and made the nation poorer having to raise and allocate more funds to government ambitions.

FDR then went forward with creating the Social Security System, implementing a higher tax on the already impoverished public. His extensive list totaling 69 new agencies did nothing but cost the American people more money, stripping them of their economic freedom, and can be defined as nothing short of outright theft.

So what about his ideas were noble? In practice just about nothing. Nothing is noble about diminishing the people of their freedom to use their property for their own means. His intent was to better the situation being faced by taking away responsibility and therefore the consequences of the people’s own economic choices. The practical issue with this is that if one person cannot be responsible with their own money, how can one individual be expected to be responsible for everyone’s money?

Roosevelt went mad with power, running three full presidential terms and pursuing a fourth until his death. This power-hungry behavior, I believe to be quit obviously, was the driving factor of his practices, nothing resembling compassion for his people. Did FDR want to help? Perhaps at first, but once he saw his actions were making the government some money and he retained the faith of the public I believe he had no desire to fix the issue that made him profit of his own.

This idea leads to one of the main contradictory views of the progressives then and those of today. They take issue with corporations acting in their own interests and solely for profits, but when the government engages in the same practices it is a moral imperative to do so, even though each time we see worse outcomes. I am personally not a fan of this practice regardless of who engages in it, however, at least when corporations do it they have a real product to offer. Besides that, they’re all liars with a drive for power whether it be monetary or social.

Continuation of Progressive Failures Today

As if progressive history wasn’t bad enough, the progressives today continue many of the same failed, repugnant ideas born during the FDR administration. Like I said previously about conservatives, progressives do not act in the interest of preserving individual liberties. Unlike conservatives, progressives don’t try to lie about it. The progressive movement today openly supports restriction after restriction on individual rights as well as the rights of private institutions.

Progressive economic policies are now even more threatening than those of FDR. I’d argue that today they push for an even further controlled market than Roosevelt implemented. There is strong progressive push towards socialized economics even beyond the Keynesian system we have had since the depression. Higher taxes, centralized government systems, and expanding public institutions are a detriment for consumers. They, like FDR, claim to want to help those in need. I believe to an extent these desires are genuine, but progressives seem to be economically illiterate to put it bluntly. In their cries against monopolization they advocate for the largest monopoly of all, the government. They believe free choice is equivalent to handouts, the majority is obligated to fund the minority. Like FDR, they believe compassion comes through theft. This redistribution of wealth is not done on the basis of consent but of coercion, pay the government your money or face the consequences. This method of thinking does not make someone a good person, it’s an argument to take everyone’s money because they think they know better. Socialist economics are inherently the stripping of property rights.

The progressives also wish to limit the free exercise of business. The increasing of federal minimum wage is probably what impacts the public the most. They argue that businesses are self-interested, driven by nothing but increasing their profits. If they hold this line of reasoning, then why do they believe that forcing them to pay more to their employees will wipe that motive away? To make up for those losses, they will find their gains another way. This will lead to increased prices putting a greater burden on the consumer, making goods more expensive will negate the pay raises that come with it. Income taxes, which they favor greatly, will also increase in raw dollar amount, leaving the public with even emptier pockets.

The common rebuttal I hear to this: “If you can’t afford to pay a higher wage then you shouldn’t be in business.” They are so economically illiterate that they can’t see how this favors the incredibly wealthy megacorporations they claim to hate. They speak out against these billionaire-led businesses yet have no problem running small businesses into the dirt. This internal contradiction makes the progressive movement today frankly laughable. They cannot be taken seriously without acknowledging they are digging themselves deeper in the hole they are trying to fill. Their advocacy for increasing taxes on businesses will lead to the same outcome: killing small businesses and strengthening megacorporations.

The Progressive Attack on Free Speech

The great controversy of the past couple years. What is free speech? What does it entail? What limits should be applied? Obvious to some, but not nearly enough, if there are restrictions on speech then it wouldn’t be free. The fight against misinformation is by far the most ridiculous endeavor they could have associated themselves with. No, misinformation should not be criminalized, and even if it was it would be impossible to enforce. As we’ve seen during the covid era, much of what has been labeled as misinformation turned out to be true, it was only labeled as such for being controversial. Think about all of the wrongful arrests that would have been a result of such ridiculous policy ideas.

They fail to provide an adequate definition of misinformation and again don’t see where their ideas of such things lead. Misinformation, as we have seen it, has not always been deliberate, more often than not people are just incorrect. Is it unlawful to be wrong? Everybody would go to jail. Everybody during the covid era was acting based on minimal information, conflicting information nonetheless. Nobody had any idea what was happening. Are we to say that they should be jailed for not knowing any better? Of course not, that would be idiotic.

So what about deliberate misinformation? This is disinformation, the difference between the two is whether or not the source of information is deliberately presenting false information. Admittedly, there is a much better case for this type of misinformation. In some cases, deliberately misleading the public can be harmful. However, how far does this go? Do we shut down news outlets for pushing these false narratives? There goes every single news source in the country. Is it a matter of how much harm it results in? Funny enough, liberal sided media would face graver consequences than conservative media when speaking of the covid information. This is not to say the difference between each side was great, they all make money off of their lies. Every mainstream journalist would be behind bars. Doctors, good doctors at that, would be behind bars. Should we outlaw all forms of harmful disinformation? Should every middle schooler who perpetuates false rumors about their classmates be locked up for disinformation? Again, this is a stupid argument on the progressive side.

The progressive attack on free speech is exclusively driven by their desire to censor every narrative that is not their own. This is an irrefutable fact. Anyone who has gone against the progressive narrative has had every attempt against them to be silenced, even those who hold virtually no power to make any difference anyway.

The Progressive Attack on Property Rights

This ties greatly into progressive economics. First, what constitutes property? Property rights stem from the concept of bodily autonomy. You own your body, you can do with it what you please, you are in complete control of it and that cannot be taken away. Self-ownership is the fundamental basis of property ownership, you own yourself. Extended from this, things created through your body’s labor also becomes your property. This idea comes from John Locke’s argument for property rights. An example I enjoy is if this: let’s say you are out in the wild, in land that is unowned and is fair game, you use it’s resources, let’s take clay for example, you take that clay, mix it with some water, and mold a cup from it. You have used your property, mixed your labor with an unowned resource, and created something from it. That creation, being derived from your labor, is your property. Locke further goes into the validity of exchanging property, how ownership of an object can be given to another. An agreement, or contract, can be made between two consenting party to trade one good for another. After the trade is complete the ownership has been exchanged that object is no longer yours, but you have received something in return. Property can also be gifted or traded for labor. Trading for labor today is essentially working for a wage. You offer your labor in return for a cut of a company’s revenue.

So aside from economic principles, how do progressives infringe on property rights? The obvious example is that of gun rights. Gun ownership falls in line with property rights, if a consensual agreement is made between vendor and consumer, no property rights have been infringed. Progressives wish to limit the sale, or some wish to prohibit it altogether, in the name of public safety, though there is an economic flaw with this. Black markets. Where there is a demand for a product a supply will be found, even it happens to be underground. But aside from the economics of it, it is a blatant infringement on property rights and an extended infringement on bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy infringements were also seen with their approach to vaccinations particularly during the covid era. A large progressive push for mandatory vaccination swept the nation. Another contradiction to their own values when presented with the abortion debate (and vice versa with conservatives). Neither side truly values autonomy, but I would argue progressives infringe on it to a greater degree.

Concluding Thoughts

Progressive politics are all around disastrous. As I mentioned in my previous post, progressives do not win elections. Their ridiculous motives, contradictory views, and disgraceful public behaviors are exactly why. I also hypothesized that these will result in a conservative takeover for at least another term after the Trump administration. They are a power-hungry, conniving, toxic faction of today’s political climate. The only reason that conservatives are currently doing more damage to the country is because they are the ones in power, but if the progressives gain control of our government then the social fabric would crumble. The only thing conservatives have going for them to prevent that is that they are very reluctant to change, especially drastic change. This gives at least some sense of stability though it’s all a mess no matter what. Neither side is favorable. Both are a detriment to our nation. A third way is the only way out.

Admittedly, I was a lot tougher on progressives here than I was on conservatives in my last post. I will again reiterate I am not a conservative nor do I support the mainstream conservative movement. They also have no interest in preserving the people’s individual rights. Conservatives and progressives are both deeply authoritarian and I, as a libertarian, despise both sides of the authoritarian coin we are ruled by. I suppose it would be most appropriate for my next post to be a defense of my own positions. I expect that to take more time to flesh out than this post and the last. It will probably be broken up into multiple parts. For now, thank you for reading.

Be well.