Progressives How Many?

You're not going to have a very balanced topic, by those standards. Progressivism was/is an actual movement in the US; we can point to its tenants and its intellectual heavyweights. Anywhere else would be nothing beyond the simple adjective and how different users will interpret that.

I don't know NZ politics very well: did they actually mirror American progressivism a la Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson?
 
And they haven't survived states.
Just because they don't claim territory on a map doesn't mean they're gone.
 
Just because they don't claim territory on a map doesn't mean they're gone.
Once a culture is destroyed yeah it's gone.

Like species 99.99% (probably more) of all cultures are extinct.

There's still a few mostly untouched aboriginal cultures here and there that empire has decided to leave alone (for now).
 
In the UK I would say the ceiling is around 40%. This is the share that Corbyn won in the 2017 election.

I think it can be safely assumed he captured the vast majority of the progressive vote (greens were at 1.6%), plus also some non-progressives voting with labour.
 
Once a culture is destroyed yeah it's gone.

Like species 99.99% (probably more) of all cultures are extinct.

There's still a few mostly untouched aboriginal cultures here and there that empire has decided to leave alone (for now).
The same is true of states from the past. There are plenty of stateless societies out there today doing their own thing. Saying "they'll get around to conquering them" is a cop out.
 
You're not going to have a very balanced topic, by those standards. Progressivism was/is an actual movement in the US; we can point to its tenants and its intellectual heavyweights. Anywhere else would be nothing beyond the simple adjective and how different users will interpret that.

I don't know NZ politics very well: did they actually mirror American progressivism a la Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson?

NZ built welfare state 19th century, first country to give women the vote 1893 and was heavily democratic socialist until 1984.
 
In the UK I would say the ceiling is around 40%. This is the share that Corbyn won in the 2017 election.

I think it can be safely assumed he captured the vast majority of the progressive vote (greens were at 1.6%), plus also some non-progressives voting with labour.

16% progressive, 14% soft left and 20%+ center iirc for UK.

Highest they got here was 59% that included centrists and right flipping (covid election).
 
Saying "they'll get around to conquering them" is a cop out.
Not really.

If you're talking about a high school anarchists club or some collective Co-housing space of trust fund kids in the bay area or a tribe in the protected rainforest somewhere yeah no one's gonna bother to conquer them.

Any stateless society could easily be bulldozed by any state if there's incentive to do so.
 
Any stateless society could easily be bulldozed by any state if there's incentive to do so.
This appears to be happening.

The number of uncontacted Amazonian tribes shrinks yearly. Loggers push them out routinely. The government tries to prevent this, half heartedly, but it still happens.

Some areas in Papua New Guinea seem stateless but that may have been presumptuous. Many appear to have agriculture, which means a state, others domesticated livestock, states as well. Actual hunter gatherers appear few, and if lithium is found there(likely does have rare earth minerals, like Aus and Indonesia), that'll be that.

The Sentinelese have the best chance, but they appear to be sporting iron weapons after repurposing the boats of crashed ships. India stops violent mercenaries from destroying them, but missionaries get through routinely, probably establishing some sort of hierarchy and state.
 
I have watched this thread and concluded that it is impossible to meaningfully discuss how
many progressives there are without first having a working definition of who a progressive is.

And therein lies the rub, as one of your countrymen once paraphrased it.

The thing progressives may have in common, is the stated need and pursuit for social, socio-economic and political reforms wherever they live. What exactly such reforms may entail and how to achieve them - I imagine that differs greatly from tribe to tribe.
 
Not really.

If you're talking about a high school anarchists club or some collective Co-housing space of trust fund kids in the bay area or a tribe in the protected rainforest somewhere yeah no one's gonna bother to conquer them.

Any stateless society could easily be bulldozed by any state if there's incentive to do so.
Point being, they exist. Just because a state claims territory on a map doesn't mean it actually controls the people living there in reality.
 
Last edited:
NZ built welfare state 19th century, first country to give women the vote 1893 and was heavily democratic socialist until 1984.
first two points are valid, but social democracy to me has little to do with progressivism.

See, US Progressives don't want to run things; they'll let private industry run things then interject when they don't like what's happening.

(aside: Part of my belief why we will never see single-payer health insurance here. [Not de jure, anyway; private monopolies or duopolies maybe]. Our historical urge towards socialism was never particularly strong.)
 
Last edited:
Unless there is a problem, then yeah, it is.

The very foundation of expansive federal legislation rests in the principle that if I breed a cow on my farm, feed it with corn grown on my farm, slaughter it and eat it on my farm, that all those steps are interstate commerce. Because I could be forced to purchase those things on the private market instead of being allowed to do things on my own. So that justifies the federal force in the first place.

People only really rankle when the veneer of social justification applies to them.
 
first two points are valid, but social democracy to me has little to do with progressivism.

See, US Progressives don't want to run things; they'll let private industry run things then interject when they don't like what's happening.

(aside: Part of my belief why we will never see single-payer health insurance here. [Not de jure, anyway; private monopolies or duopolies maybe]. Our historical urge towards socialism was never particularly strong.)

I waant making any claims more we did our own thing so the question wasn't that applicable.
 
Unless there is a problem, then yeah, it is.

The very foundation of expansive federal legislation rests in the principle that if I breed a cow on my farm, feed it with corn grown on my farm, slaughter it and eat it on my farm, that all those steps are interstate commerce. Because I could be forced to purchase those things on the private market instead of being allowed to do things on my own. So that justifies the federal force in the first place.

People only really rankle when the veneer of social justification applies to them.

Pretty wikiard logic. The could just tie Federal rulership to subsidies.
 
Not the order it happened in, tho.

Many didn't participate in the dole until Earl Butts maximal priduction and federal trade policy betrayed with the wheat embargo.
 
Unless there is a problem, then yeah, it is.

The very foundation of expansive federal legislation rests in the principle that if I breed a cow on my farm, feed it with corn grown on my farm, slaughter it and eat it on my farm, that all those steps are interstate commerce. Because I could be forced to purchase those things on the private market instead of being allowed to do things on my own. So that justifies the federal force in the first place.

People only really rankle when the veneer of social justification applies to them.
But having to say who owns corporations is not interstate commerce apparently

US federal appeals court temporarily halts enforcement of anti-money laundering law

The CTA, enacted in 2021, aims to combat money laundering and financial crimes by requiring corporations and LLCs to submit detailed reports on their real beneficial owners to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Supporters of the law argue it addresses the growing use of U.S. entities by criminals to launder illicit funds.

However, the National Federation of Independent Business and several small businesses, represented by the conservative Center for Individual Rights, challenged the law as unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in Sherman, Texas, sided with the challengers earlier this month, ruling that the law overstepped Congress’s constitutional authority and violated the Tenth Amendment by infringing on states’ rights.
 
It's not like I'm arguing the principle is particularly principled. The commerce clause is clearly interpreted like horse****, and upon that communal power horse**** does everything rest.

The people whinging about needing to do paperwork to justify thier little corporate shields are, essentially, douchebags.
 
Back
Top Bottom