Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Conservative and Progressive Achievements

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 8:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have liberals really been the driving force behind progress while conservatives have stalled?

You may think so. But, as usual, it is a pretty complex story.

Let's look at slavery. You think it was liberals that abolished slavery?

Maybe. But, let's not forget that northern business interests were a big force behind abolition. Business interests aren't exactly a traditional "progressive" group. Many of he advocates of slavery disliked unions and were staunch advocates of free enterprise. They were classical liberals... not the modern social liberals. The two are very different.

How about desegregation?

Well, let's look at the biggest defender of segregation. George Wallace, a Democrat. And, no, he wasn't a conservative Democrat. He was a staunch New Dealer who supported state intervention. This guy was not just a defender of segregation. He was the biggest and most influential defender. Not exactly consistent with the simplistic conservatives opposing segregation and liberals supporting it narrative you seem to believe.

Some of the other things that progressives supposedly achieved are better categorized as mistakes than achievements. I mean, we can thank progressives for massively expanding the role of the state in the health care sector. But, is this a good thing?

In 1960, our health care expenditures were around 5% of GDP. That was back when those, apparently, evil conservatives got their way and the government mostly stayed out of health care. Health care wasn't that expensive. Now, after 50 years of expanding state intervention, it costs around 18% of GDP. Is this really a great achievement? Or, is it possible that conservatives were right to be skeptical of progressive ideas to expand the state?

With regards to immigration, has the mass immigration that the left has supported been a success in Europe?

I would say it is hard to say that it has been.

Anyways, the point is that progressives have made a lot of mistakes. And, many of the big state driven achievements were not purely driven by so called progressives.

I'll end by pointing out that progressives are far more hostile than conservatives to the biggest driver of progress in the history of the world: free enterprise.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 8:52:22 PM, BigRat wrote:
Have liberals really been the driving force behind progress while conservatives have stalled?

You may think so. But, as usual, it is a pretty complex story.

Let's look at slavery. You think it was liberals that abolished slavery?

Maybe. But, let's not forget that northern business interests were a big force behind abolition. Business interests aren't exactly a traditional "progressive" group. Many of he advocates of slavery disliked unions and were staunch advocates of free enterprise. They were classical liberals... not the modern social liberals. The two are very different.

This is a social issue, and is not relevant to progressivism as it didn't exist in the United States in its modern form until Theodore Roosevelt became President. You know that one of the notable literary works of progressivism was about the meat packing industry, right? More specifically, the horrible working conditions and the resulting low-quality half-meat, half-'other' product that resulted? Progressivism is about getting rid of problems like this. Lumping in support of slavery with modern progressivism when it didn't even exist is quite a stretch.

How about desegregation?

Well, let's look at the biggest defender of segregation. George Wallace, a Democrat. And, no, he wasn't a conservative Democrat. He was a staunch New Dealer who supported state intervention. This guy was not just a defender of segregation. He was the biggest and most influential defender. Not exactly consistent with the simplistic conservatives opposing segregation and liberals supporting it narrative you seem to believe.

This is another social issue, and this one hardly has any relevance to the economy. Plus, this is a guilt by association fallacy (or hasty generalization, depending on how you look at it. Or spotlight. Or poisoning the well. In any case, this argument isn't valid).

Some of the other things that progressives supposedly achieved are better categorized as mistakes than achievements. I mean, we can thank progressives for massively expanding the role of the state in the health care sector. But, is this a good thing?

In 1960, our health care expenditures were around 5% of GDP. That was back when those, apparently, evil conservatives got their way and the government mostly stayed out of health care. Health care wasn't that expensive. Now, after 50 years of expanding state intervention, it costs around 18% of GDP. Is this really a great achievement? Or, is it possible that conservatives were right to be skeptical of progressive ideas to expand the state?

In 1960, we didn't have as many treatments available as we do today. Do you have any idea what any kind of drug that is still under patent protection costs? I also firmly believe that the fact that hospitals tend to charge $50 for things like Tylenol or pieces of gauze wrap or perfectly reusable items like surgical masks worn by surgeons are hardly caused by state intervention. You have to understand the unique nature of hospitals as compared to other businesses before applying the naive, idiotic "free market everything" approach. Think of this scenario: You have woken up from extreme pain in your lower torso/pelvis area, on the right side. Judging by the location of the pain, you assume it is appendicitis. What do you do?
A) Take out a loan and enter the market of healthcare by founding a hospital
B) Compare reviews of local hospitals, on price and quality of service for appendectomy
C) Go to the nearest hospital
D) Vote with your wallet by refusing to go to a hospital
I'd assume most people would answer C. When people have an emergency, there's no time to be a smart consumer, there is only time to go get treatment before you die, and you don't get to choose where to get appendicitis. Thus, there is a lack of competition. Lack of competition leads to higher prices. There are some places where competition doesn't work, and for a free market to work, there HAS to be competition. Furthermore, these services are things that we need. What you're seeing here is the effect of price gouging from a lack of competition. Now, we can either acknowledge that competition isn't acting as a sufficient force in setting price points in certain sectors of the economy and add in some new artificial means of affecting the price point to remedy this, or we can continue preaching free-market while healthcare costs rise because nothing is stopping them from doing so. You choose.

With regards to immigration, has the mass immigration that the left has supported been a success in Europe?

I would say it is hard to say that it has been.

I don't keep track of Europe. Coupled with your lack of any statements about it, I'll ignore this one until you actually bring up something about it with substance.

Anyways, the point is that progressives have made a lot of mistakes. And, many of the big state driven achievements were not purely driven by so called progressives.

My point is that you are making plenty of logical fallacies, false comparisons, and other logical mistakes in your so-called reasoning. It's hard to call them anything but the result of confirmation bias.

I'll end by pointing out that progressives are far more hostile than conservatives to the biggest driver of progress in the history of the world: free enterprise.

I'll end by pointing out that free enterprise doesn't work everywhere, in every situation. With free enterprise, we must ensure that there will either always be competition, since free enterprise DEPENDS on it, or that there is something else in place to prevent artificial scarcity. Without competition, businesses are free to fix prices to whatever they want, and they don't tend to set things on the low end.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:47:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:20:10 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/22/2013 8:52:22 PM, BigRat wrote:
Have liberals really been the driving force behind progress while conservatives have stalled?

You may think so. But, as usual, it is a pretty complex story.

Let's look at slavery. You think it was liberals that abolished slavery?

Maybe. But, let's not forget that northern business interests were a big force behind abolition. Business interests aren't exactly a traditional "progressive" group. Many of he advocates of slavery disliked unions and were staunch advocates of free enterprise. They were classical liberals... not the modern social liberals. The two are very different.

This is a social issue, and is not relevant to progressivism as it didn't exist in the United States in its modern form until Theodore Roosevelt became President. You know that one of the notable literary works of progressivism was about the meat packing industry, right? More specifically, the horrible working conditions and the resulting low-quality half-meat, half-'other' product that resulted? Progressivism is about getting rid of problems like this. Lumping in support of slavery with modern progressivism when it didn't even exist is quite a stretch.

Yes. It is a stretch. That is why I never did that. I never even suggested that progressives were supportive of slavery. And, it might be interesting for you to know that that guy who wrote about the meat packing industry had never visited one.

Progressivism is about using state power to benefit certain groups and control people in the name of "getting rid of problems"... many of which are manufactured by progressives.


This is another social issue, and this one hardly has any relevance to the economy. Plus, this is a guilt by association fallacy (or hasty generalization, depending on how you look at it. Or spotlight. Or poisoning the well. In any case, this argument isn't valid).

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am not saying progressives supported desegregation. I am saying that the simple narrative of "progressives supported desegregation and conservatives fought it" is not really correct.


Some of the other things that progressives supposedly achieved are better categorized as mistakes than achievements. I mean, we can thank progressives for massively expanding the role of the state in the health care sector. But, is this a good thing?

In 1960, our health care expenditures were around 5% of GDP. That was back when those, apparently, evil conservatives got their way and the government mostly stayed out of health care. Health care wasn't that expensive. Now, after 50 years of expanding state intervention, it costs around 18% of GDP. Is this really a great achievement? Or, is it possible that conservatives were right to be skeptical of progressive ideas to expand the state?

In 1960, we didn't have as many treatments available as we do today. Do you have any idea what any kind of drug that is still under patent protection costs? I also firmly believe that the fact that hospitals tend to charge $50 for things like Tylenol or pieces of gauze wrap or perfectly reusable items like surgical masks worn by surgeons are hardly caused by state intervention. You have to understand the unique nature of hospitals as compared to other businesses before applying the naive, idiotic "free market everything" approach. Think of this scenario: You have woken up from extreme pain in your lower torso/pelvis area, on the right side. Judging by the location of the pain, you assume it is appendicitis. What do you do?
A) Take out a loan and enter the market of healthcare by founding a hospital
B) Compare reviews of local hospitals, on price and quality of service for appendectomy
C) Go to the nearest hospital
D) Vote with your wallet by refusing to go to a hospital
I'd assume most people would answer C. When people have an emergency, there's no time to be a smart consumer, there is only time to go get treatment before you die, and you don't get to choose where to get appendicitis. Thus, there is a lack of competition. Lack of competition leads to higher prices. There are some places where competition doesn't work, and for a free market to work, there HAS to be competition. Furthermore, these services are things that we need. What you're seeing here is the effect of price gouging from a lack of competition. Now, we can either acknowledge that competition isn't acting as a sufficient force in setting price points in certain sectors of the economy and add in some new artificial means of affecting the price point to remedy this, or we can continue preaching free-market while healthcare costs rise because nothing is stopping them from doing so. You choose.

Or, we can take a different approach. Instead of calling anyone who points out that the modern health care sector has a lot of state interventon a "free market fundamentalist", we can look at the fact that virtually every problem in the modern health care system did not arise until after the massive state intervention that took place in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. We can ignore the fact that the AMA (accredited by the government) limits the supply of physicians thus not allowing supply to respond to demand. We can ignore that there is a "tragedy of the commons" situation where people have no incentive to control their own health care costs because it is borne by a third pary and we can ignore that the employer tax deduction has a lot to do with this problem. We can also ignore that, in every sector that we allow the free market to work, prices fall and quality rises.

We can ignore all of those things and scream about "free market fundamentalists" and make up BS theories about why, for some reason, and against all evidence, the free market won't work in health care. Oh wait, you said "the free market doesn't work everywhere". A pathetic appeal to the middle ground. Actually, the free market pretty much does do better than the state everywhere. And, yes, it works in health care too.

The free market is merely the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and firms. It works. The middle ground is wrong. The problems with the USA health care system did not exist prior to state intervention. Technology doesn't drive up costs. It hasn't in sectors we allow the free market to work in.


With regards to immigration, has the mass immigration that the left has supported been a success in Europe?

I would say it is hard to say that it has been.

I don't keep track of Europe. Coupled with your lack of any statements about it, I'll ignore this one until you actually bring up something about it with substance.


My point is that you are making plenty of logical fallacies, false comparisons, and other logical mistakes in your so-called reasoning. It's hard to call them anything but the result of confirmation bias.

I'll end by pointing out that progressives are far more hostile than conservatives to the biggest driver of progress in the history of the world: free enterprise.

I'll end by pointing out that free enterprise doesn't work everywhere, in every situation. With free enterprise, we must ensure that there will either always be competition, since free enterprise DEPENDS on it, or that there is something else in place to prevent artificial scarcity. Without competition, businesses are free to fix prices to whatever they want, and they don't tend to set things on the low end.

Another fallacy. First, a false appeal to the middle ground. Free markets work better than the state pretty much everywhere. They just do. Second, competition does exist wherever the biggest monopoly stays out (the state is that monopoly).
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:00:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 8:52:22 PM, BigRat wrote:

In 1960, our health care expenditures were around 5% of GDP. That was back when those, apparently, evil conservatives got their way and the government mostly stayed out of health care. Health care wasn't that expensive. Now, after 50 years of expanding state intervention, it costs around 18% of GDP. Is this really a great achievement? Or, is it possible that conservatives were right to be skeptical of progressive ideas to expand the state?

Nixon put forth a health plan in '71 that makes the ACA look like a band aid on a bullet wound.

Would you describe Nixon as conservative or liberal (and, I might agree with you if you say liberal, because by today's standards, he sorta is)?

With regards to immigration, has the mass immigration that the left has supported been a success in Europe?

I would say it is hard to say that it has been.

Anyways, the point is that progressives have made a lot of mistakes. And, many of the big state driven achievements were not purely driven by so called progressives.

I'll end by pointing out that progressives are far more hostile than conservatives to the biggest driver of progress in the history of the world: free enterprise.

Everyone makes a lot of mistakes, and you more than most. People are stupid. So what of it?

At least Progressives try to solve new problems rather than relying on the same old, broke down non-solutions.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:03:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes. It is a stretch. That is why I never did that. I never even suggested that progressives were supportive of slavery. And, it might be interesting for you to know that that guy who wrote about the meat packing industry had never visited one.

Progressivism is about using state power to benefit certain groups and control people in the name of "getting rid of problems"... many of which are manufactured by progressives.

So you're admitting to using propaganda techniques here?

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am not saying progressives supported desegregation. I am saying that the simple narrative of "progressives supported desegregation and conservatives fought it" is not really correct.

So you're basing this on the existence of a counterexample? There's a counterexample to practically everything, there isn't any true mutually inclusive part of any ideology.

Or, we can take a different approach. Instead of calling anyone who points out that the modern health care sector has a lot of state interventon a "free market fundamentalist", we can look at the fact that virtually every problem in the modern health care system did not arise until after the massive state intervention that took place in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. We can ignore the fact that the AMA (accredited by the government) limits the supply of physicians thus not allowing supply to respond to demand. We can ignore that there is a "tragedy of the commons" situation where people have no incentive to control their own health care costs because it is borne by a third pary and we can ignore that the employer tax deduction has a lot to do with this problem. We can also ignore that, in every sector that we allow the free market to work, prices fall and quality rises.

We can ignore all of those things and scream about "free market fundamentalists" and make up BS theories about why, for some reason, and against all evidence, the free market won't work in health care. Oh wait, you said "the free market doesn't work everywhere". A pathetic appeal to the middle ground. Actually, the free market pretty much does do better than the state everywhere. And, yes, it works in health care too.

The free market is merely the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and firms. It works. The middle ground is wrong. The problems with the USA health care system did not exist prior to state intervention. Technology doesn't drive up costs. It hasn't in sectors we allow the free market to work in.

Then it would be logical to repeal or severely weaken patent laws. They cause many prescription medications to be extremely expensive, since they essentially enforce the existence of monopolies. However, this is a specific right our government has since it is specified in the Constitution that inventions can be secured to their creators for limited times. While I believe in free information, it really would reduce incentive to actually develop these medicines if they can't get gobs of cash for it.

Maybe make it so patents expire when initial costs to a business are met? This way, they get to at least cover their losses, and then they actually have to compete with others who actually do the work of marketing said product (arguably the greater part of the work, genius is 99% perspiration, right?) Just a thought.

That being said, it would be unethical to not regulate fields of medicine at all. You claim regulations limit the supply of physicians. However, think about it. Low quality service in medicine gets people killed. It's why we have strict oversight on food industries, to make sure steps are taken to prevent outbreaks of food-borne illness, and why we make a big deal about it when there is a food recall. Now, tell me. Do you really want some amateur operating on you when you are getting that appendectomy? I'd honestly feel better paying more if it meant that I wasn't going to be operated on by someone who is just as likely to accidentally leave his scalpel inside of me when he goes in to stitch up the opening as he is to not accidentally leave my appendix in.

Another fallacy. First, a false appeal to the middle ground. Free markets work better than the state pretty much everywhere. They just do. Second, competition does exist wherever the biggest monopoly stays out (the state is that monopoly)

Then explain what happens when large trusts form. This might sound like something you'd hear charleslb say, but capitalism does in some ways teach people to exploit the system for monetary gain whenever possible, regardless of whether or not it is by design that this exploitation exists. If it means co-operating with your competitors to raise prices, then it'll happen. The government needs to step in sometimes to break up trusts if nothing else, since trusts present nothing but harm to society, and only push for plutocracy, not the meritocracy that capitalism is supposed to represent. The state does have a role in the economy, however minimal it may be.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 11:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 8:52:22 PM, BigRat wrote:
Have liberals really been the driving force behind progress while conservatives have stalled?

You may think so. But, as usual, it is a pretty complex story.

Let's look at slavery. You think it was liberals that abolished slavery?

Maybe. But, let's not forget that northern business interests were a big force behind abolition. Business interests aren't exactly a traditional "progressive" group. Many of he advocates of slavery disliked unions and were staunch advocates of free enterprise. They were classical liberals... not the modern social liberals. The two are very different.

Populism started in the south after the civil war, as a pro-agricultural, and anti elitist movement. They formed labor unions and tried to take down big business. During and prior to the civil wa, politics were not split between left and right, but rather collectivist and individualist. The Collectivists being the nationalists and socialists, and the individualists being the classic liberals (libertarians) and constitutionalists.

How about desegregation?

Well, let's look at the biggest defender of segregation. George Wallace, a Democrat. And, no, he wasn't a conservative Democrat. He was a staunch New Dealer who supported state intervention. This guy was not just a defender of segregation. He was the biggest and most influential defender. Not exactly consistent with the simplistic conservatives opposing segregation and liberals supporting it narrative you seem to believe.

FDR was racist as well. He had concentration camps for Pete sakes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle