Change Is Good: Progressivism

Well, it sort of is binary, here. Either it changes or it doesn't.

The sliding scale is of how much it changes, if at all...

I am now known as Flyboy.

This wall of text seems a bit of strawman for this one. Anyway, this one does not know anyone who thinks that change for the sake of change is good. Also, this one values progress, equality and believes that there is no fixed formula about how people should live their lives, yet does not subscribe to moral relativism.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Agreed, which is why talking about "change" in the abstract is unhelpful. (Now that I think about it, my previous two posts in this thread probably made the problem worse.)

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Actually, this WoT is secretist's least biased WoT. yet. Though it makes some odd leaps in the dark with regard to what progressives "think".

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Just because it's unbiased doesn't mean it makes sense.

I will say that I think Edward Hallett Carr came pretty close to believing in change for change's sake, but I may have been misreading him.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Indeed. Again, a bit of strawman

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Oswald Spengler explicitly favored change for change's sake, saying "the Godhead is the becoming and not in the fixed and set fast"... i.e. people causing change literally had God on their side.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Hmm, true enough. But he can hardly be considered "progressivist"

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

NOT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD, nor does liking change for change's sake make you a progressive. 'Progress' by definition implies a transitive, directional change towards a normative improvement.

Of course, since we apparently deleted that Shichibukai thread where I defined my theory of progress for Bobby G, I can't copy/paste said theory here.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

When Chi stands still, that is when you have pain. A Progressive recognizes when the pressure in the system needs to be relieved; when ideas, products, services, and opportunities cannot reach where intended.

History cycles so frequently that yesterday's Progressives become today's Conservatives, and vice-versa.

By the times, the US Constitution was groundbreaking. Nowadays it's sort of outdated. For one thing, most modern Consitutions are UN Declaration of Human Rights compliant, with the reserves that the only humans the consititutions guarrantee these rights to are the citizens of the relevant administrative territory.

edited 14th Oct '11 12:56:43 PM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Of course, the problem is that what constitutes "progress"? Who says what change is progressive, that is, good, and which isn't? I mean, what I'd consider progress, another might think reaction, and yet another might think mere stand-pattism.

Change for the sake of change is no better or worse than a lack of change for its own sake. It has to be measured comparatively speaking. Obviously, changing to a worse state is worse, and changing to a better state is better. It's that simple.

Who defines "worse"? Maybe I've read too much Hobbes lately, but what I think is good you likely think would be horrible.

Again, it all depends on context.

If we can't all agree that all else being equal abject poverty and intense suffering are bad, then there's not a whole lot to discuss.

^ Not everything is economics related Tomu. Some things like rights just can't be quantified in currency.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Hehehe. The Anarcho-capitalists would like to disagree with that statement: they'd like a world were rights can be bought and sold. For example, you can sell your right to vote, or your right to emit carbon dioxyde, or sell yourself into slavery, or sell your organs so that your family gets the money.

Wouldn't that be totally awesome?

edited 17th Oct '11 6:31:02 AM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Exactly. If "Progressivists" (whoever we might call that) thought that any change is good, they'd be hailing reactionary changes too. And that is not something anyone accuses them of

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Tom: Your ignorance is showing.

It's not currency because there's not exact measurements, but rights are just another form of utility; ultimately, every right must come in part at the cost of some other right that exists. We measure security versus freedom all the time, and there's some break-even point where a sacrifice in one is worth it for a gain in the other. That's precisely what economic analysis of human rights tells us; that there is some optimal point.

Of course, we don't know precisely where the optimal point is, but that's just Loki's Wager fallacy. In any event, that was totally off topic and a non-sequitor.