Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Origin of Progressive Hostility
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 03/15/2018 5:45:16 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: Big Red Badger

Unable to Recognize Truth.

><><

Right on. The truth to Progressives is what they want it to be.


21 posted on 03/15/2018 10:34:42 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

I think the reason for their hostility is that they know their arguments are weak and their positions can’t be defended. That was true of socialists then and now, true of LGBT zealots, black racists, feminists, atheists, Muslims, etc. Wilson and TR weren’t bitter because they didn’t try and deny the biological reality of 2 genders, amongst other things. Back then progressivism was merely an economic ideology. Now it’s become an entire religion.

I’ve been hostile in discussions before too but on the opposite side. Whenever I was not adequately informed of my side’s arguments, I just became hostile and malicious toward my opponent because I didn’t want to look weak and like a loser, and had nothing else to resort to.

My solution? Avoid debates altogether. That and stick to your principles. Whatever the left says to argue against liberty, I simply remember that I believe in liberty for liberty’s sake. If owning guns makes us less safe, privately-run healthcare shortens our lives, and having a large carbon footprint keeps the planet on course for destruction, so be it. I’d rather be free.


22 posted on 03/15/2018 10:41:54 PM PDT by Mafe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

There is nothing progressive about Progressivism.


23 posted on 03/15/2018 10:44:46 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative ( An Armed Society is a Polite Society. An Unarmed Society is North Korea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

I’ve decided to stop using the phrase “we’ll just agree to disagree” when dealing with Liberals.

They hate me the same either way, so why give them even one millimeter of understanding?


24 posted on 03/15/2018 10:48:21 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative ( An Armed Society is a Polite Society. An Unarmed Society is North Korea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

You’re preaching to the choir dude. I used to be a liberal, or ‘’progressive’’. I’ve said a hundred times here you have to use their tactics against. Even if it means punching them in the mouth. It’s all they understand.


25 posted on 03/15/2018 10:55:54 PM PDT by jmacusa ("Made it Ma, top of the world!'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; Rocky; All
Thank you, Rocky, for your response to my original post. The thought occurs that whereas the 1787 U. S. Constitution's philosophical basis--as expressly laid out in the 1776 Declaration of Independence--was formed and framed on the "natural law" foundation--is, and was, anathema to the Progressive movement from the beginning.

Their rejection of the Framers' premise continues to control their lack of vision, and their totalitarian Progressive ideology's control over the minds of its cultist followers.

Natural Law

"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator­ endowed rights to life, liberty, and property. Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind.

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.." Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immut­able code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the plowman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:

"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."

What are those natural laws? Blackstone continued:

"Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.."

The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society. their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

Americas leaders of 1787 had studied Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others, as well as the history of the rise and fall of governments, and they recognized these underlying principles of law as those of the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the deepest thought of the ages. An example of the harmony of natural law and natural rights is Blackstone's "that we should live honestly" - otherwise known as "thou shalt not steal" - whose corresponding natural right is that of individual freedom to acquire and own, through honest initiative, private property. In the Founders' view, this law and this right were unalterable and of a higher order than any written law of man. Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.

America's Constitution is the culmination of the best reasoning of men of all time and is based on the most profound and beneficial values mankind has been able to fathom. It is, as William E. Gladstone observed, "The Most Wonderful Work Ever Struck Off At A Given Time By the Brain And Purpose Of Man." We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protec­tion of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom."-John Locke


 
Footnote:  Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

26 posted on 03/16/2018 11:37:50 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Excellent! Thank you for that passage.


27 posted on 03/16/2018 12:31:13 PM PDT by Rocky (I have principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson