Is There A Connection?

If I leave a coffee shop with two cups of coffee, it seems to me the shop owner might expect me to pay for two cups of coffee.

To me that seems compatible with capitalism.

That also seems compatible with my notion of fairness.

We all expect to get what we pay for. It makes sense to me that we should also expect to pay for what we get.

Since excessive caffeine can be bad for one's health, however, I suspect we might find some quotes from medical journals that warn us about coffee. But I'm healthy and I enjoy coffee, and two cups a day is generally considered okay, as I recall. So I drink two cups of coffee, and I don't mind paying for them.

I'd like to ensure that fairness remains a part of commerce.

I hope that's useful.

Cheers

I guess I'm going to call myself a "CPV" (Capitialist with Progressive Values). Rockridge is a worldwide movement, including socialist nations with progressive values, and Mr. Lakoff seems to sympathize with Marxism so I'll leave the word "Progressive" for that distinction. From now on, I'll try to make the CPV v. Progressive distinction so I don't irritate people with my "individual over group" argument. (I've said here before but it's worth repeating: I feel no competition with socialism - I've simply been raised as a Capitalist so that is my value system.)

I bet there are other CPVs here... We are in common cause with Progressives to repeat progressive frames & promote progressive themes. The Democratic party is a big tent.

Well, of course, you can call yourself whatever you want. Being called late for dinner can be kind of disappointing, though, so I would advise against that particular option.

The staff of Rockridge works hard to ensure this web site meets its nonpartisan requirements. It seems to me the values-driven political philosophy under development here would be a solid foundation for any political party, current or future, that might choose to learn from these ideas. I'm glad you see room for Rockridge in your chosen tent.

Cheers

"sympathize with Marxism"???!!!! Are you from Fox News?

Seriously, please find another site to opine on.

that is the classic mistake many conservatives make when discussing economics. Most American progressives appreciate a mixed market economy as an efficient means of production and distribution. I think what Dr.Lakoff was referring to was not socialism, but progressive taxation, which is something even many conservatives understand. Most people would agree that those who benefit most from the system have an obligation to give the most back. If that's Marxism, you might be more comfortable over at one of the more conservative blogs out there.

Yeah, I don't get this comparison with Marxism or socialism either. I think I tried to explain once why I don't consider myself a socialist, but Martin Hash seems to be convinced that you only have two options: 1. unrestrained capitalism and 2. socialism. I'm neither and I don't think Lakoff is either.

Maybe it's time for Rockridge to real get into the differences between socialism and progressivism. I'm tired of how so many in this country continue to think anything that puts restrictions on capitalism is socialism.

>Maybe it's time for Rockridge to [] get into the [real] differences between socialism and progressivism[?]

I agree.

Who said people are afraid of the S word? If someone calls me something that I don't think I am and I say so, does that mean I'm afraid of it?

Christ, and this is coming from the person who keeps complaining about the Label Police...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the philosophy of the group over individual. This philosophy places obligations without explicit acceptance from the individual. The reasons given are ethical: "dignity," "fairness," "common good," etc.

"You are only responsible for the obligations you accept on yourself" is the philosophy of the individual over the group, exemplified in Contract law. I respect your own priorities of "dignity," "fairness" & "common good" but they don't necessarily apply to me.

There are times when attaching responsibility has merit, in which case we define the obligation in court, and then subject ourselves to it because we previously agreed to be bound by the Constitution and the law.

I agree with most of the progressive agenda, and the linguistic tactics used to promote it, but I'm refining my argument - isn't that why this forum is here?

Please examine your tendency to throw arguments that don't jell for you into a category so you may then dismiss the argument.

You can have liberal or conservative economic philosophies and/or social philosophies. Then there is the manner in which those philosophies are implemented by a govt.. It ranges between libertarian (100% voluntary free for all, wild west style) or authoritarian (100% mandatory and punishable for non-compliance).

I don't even feel weird speaking for all progressives when I say that the moment a person feels forced into a situation, it becomes un-progressive. Oppression is the opposite of progressivism regardless of what philosophy it takes. We recognizes strengths and weaknesses in a variety of governing styles and strive to improve. Even if we achieved a seemingly "perfect" govt.:), we would continually have to stay engaged and tweak it to suit the current body of people.

Progressivism is about empowering you and being made aware of those around you and your impact on them.

Capitalism is great when it generates ingenious solutions to tough problems and creates prosperity, it sucks when it imprisons people, pollutes them, injures them and causes them death. I think it sucks when a person devotes most of their adult waking hours to a company and lives in fear that their line of sustenance will get jerked away at a whim. I think it sucks when we put a company's bottom line at a higher priority than human life,wildlife and long term benefits. It's called socializing the losses and privatizing the profits.

You're not one of THOSE kind of socialists are you?

I've noticed that Martin Hash likes to engage in black and white thinking. There is always two categories and he tries to squeeze every idea there is into these two cubby holes. But I don't accept this.

That's a very beautiful bit of writing, "Think4myself" (I hate communicating via screen names).

 

Contrary to popular opinion, a "free market" doesn't exist anywhere, not even in this country. Many conservatives would like it to be, but it isn't. You can't sell slaves, certain drugs, nuclear weapons, sex, etc. Then there is the central bank.

No progressive that I know of is advocating the elimination of private enterprise. And how you derive this from Lakoff's ideas is beyond me. Where does he say this?

The question is how much regulations there needs to be. Conservatives want little or none. Progressives want more.

Socialism doesn't believe in private enterprise. Like I've said before, they are into central planning. But when I tell you this, it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

I've been loosely defining: socialism = group over individual, and Capitalism = individual over group, but obviously those definitions aren't appropriate.

What should we call "group over individual" philosophy?

What should we call "individual over group" philosophy?

Individual vs group, capitalism vs socialism, etc. Why is there always only two categories from which we must choose? I already said I reject having to separate things into such categories. Yet, you keep insisting that we all follow your narrow way of thinking.

There are two sides in a court of law, and only one wins.

We have a two party system in this country, and only one wins.

An "Expert System" divides all things down to a fundamental yes/no answer... All things: rather it be rhetorical, technological, or practical.

What's to stop me from just arbitrary coming up with another way of subdiving it, as long as it's only two?

Anyway, I'm through with this discussion. It's useless talking to you, because you come with a bunch of preconceived stuff and you insist on everyone thinking the way you do. Well, I don't and if you want to deal with the real world, you're going to have to deal with a myriad of different view points.

Good luck with election.

>Good luck with election.

Well, thank you.

Just FYI Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman also sloppily accused/inferred someone of Marxism today (Obama). Where do you get your influence from? Is this a righty talking point now?

It goes to show you that Progressives are starting to make an impact. People are listening to what they're saying - and what they hear sounds familiar...

And FDR was a communist.

Words matter. Words matter, because words create consequences.

In our culture there are some words people use to scare each other. There are some words people use to disrupt the flow of a conversation in progress. There are some words people use to inhibit thoughtful exploration and to inhibit mature, engaged dialog.

In our culture, many of those scare words end with -ism.

Some terms are loaded; some terms are very heavily loaded. Some terms attach to very deep frames.

I suspect some of those -ism scare words work by tapping into some very deep frames and some very deeply rooted beliefs in our cultural mythology. If I were going to try to dig into those deep frames, I think I would only try it with explorers whose demonstrated record of behavior inspires confidence and trust.

--
etbnc
http://bluepuzzle.org/iceberg
http://mybluepuzzlepiece.blogspot.com/
http://mybluepuzzlepiece.blogspot.com/[…]/idealism-labelism-bagism.html

Okay, in this forum I'll refrain from using the "S" word... But that brings up the question of what do we call it?

Here's my declaration: "we are only responsible for the obligations we accept on ourselves." The opposite of that is the mandate, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Someone said that my declaration is conservative, but that's Contract law, and our Constitutional guarantee as expressed in American jurisprudence. Does that make America a fundamentally conservative nation? Maybe, but I don't think so. In the surveys that I have to fill out for endorsements, I come out a liberal because I have progressive values on the environment, education, labor, foreign policy, social issues, etc., etc., etc.

Where does that leave our vocabulary if we can't use the "S" word?