Progressives are Liberals but are not liberal - their actions show they, in reality, are tyrants - Granite Grok

Progressives are Liberals but are not liberal – their actions show they, in reality, are tyrants

Socialism is Tyranny by DeceitAnd remember, EVERY Progressive is a socialist…in this, they perfectly fit the definition of Orwellianism – they use the same words as everyone else but mean them to mean other meanings – bastardizing the common language so as to advance a leftist / socialist agenda.  They can’t be honest to us or to our common language else they’d never win elections.  Liberal used to imply “let others do as they wish – leave them alone”.  Instead, “Liberals” are all about controlling and being bossy about how others should behave and how to spend their money.  Prof Don Boudreaux (one of my favorite reads) has more on this notion and pretty much calls Progressives out as to who they really are – tyrants, as they have no problem in taking the Freedom of others away from them because: LIBERALS!  (emphasis mine):

Liberal is a good word with positive connotations, which is why English-speaking statists (people who are today commonly called “liberal”) appropriated the term despite it describing almost nothing about their political and policy beliefs.  There is nothing liberal about the itch to order other people about or the arrogance that encourages the scratching of that itch – there is nothing liberal about this itch and arrogance even when those suffering these afflictions genuinely believe that their commands will help the people who are ordered about, and when a majority of voters suffer from that same itch and arrogance.  Recall what Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) wrote on page 372 of his History of Economic Analysis (posthumously published in 1954) about 18th- and 19th-century proponents of free markets; he wrote that these free-market proponents believed

in a spirit of laissez-faire, that is to say, on the theory that the best way to promote economic development and general welfare is to remove fetters from the private-enterprise economy and to leave it alone.  This is what will be meant in this book by Economic Liberalism.  The reader is requested to keep this definition in mind because the term has acquired a different– in fact almost the opposite– meaning since about 1900 and especially since 1930: as a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label. [emphasis added]

<snip>

If you’re going to be a tyrant – if you insist that social engineers must order people about (for their own good, of course!) – if you distrust individual adults to make their own life’s choices, or if you so disrespect other adults that you insist on the right to override their choices when those choices displease you – if you believe that a world that doesn’t conform to your ideal vision is a world demanding your forcible intrusion in order to ‘improve’ that world – if you are so ignorant of economics and history that you do not understand how complex social orders can always better emerge when the individual who comprise society are left free than when those individuals are bridled and fettered and led about by their ‘betters’ – then to artificially sweeten the flavor of what you propose you want a nice, warm, fuzzy, and positive name to go by.  ”Liberal” fits the bill.  Unfortunately, though, it does not fit you.

I shall not mince words – if you fit all of the attributes in Boudreaux’s above paragraph, you are a tyrant.  Yes, you may not have the gun and bayonet in your hands but if you are able to throw the levers of power that control the Force that Government can deploy against those that will not comply, you are complicit in reducing other peoples’ Freedom and enhancing the tyranny that others must endure.  No amount of “Dudley Do-gooderness” can mask the intent of the actions – that is merely a sugar coating mask to have other obey your will.

>