How can anyone righteously avoid seeing the obvious problem in thinking Bernie Sanders is the proper face of progressivism?
Putting aside his traditional and aged look (not to reverse discriminate, but standard looking and old white guy is progressive?), his government-driven solutions have been implemented throughout the world (and deep into history) with the same honestly expected results — strangling society by (any evolution of) complex judicial regulations to address always-rare instances of abuse is ultimately absurdly destructive against the ‘little guy’ (and everyone else).
Putting aside the absence of any concrete evidence proving any reduction in overall tragedy as a result of that regulatory interference (spun statistics are not credible evidence), there’s no completely logical (i.e. sane) path in favor of that regulatory approach.
Leveraging agenda-based selective reasoning for claimed progress is ironically abusive, but selfish hypocrisy brutally and widely rages onwards with no public address (just lone wolves such as yours truly howling through careless air).
I don’t want to piss against the wind (even metaphorically), but when that wind is so powerfully irrational to a degree condoning severe judicial regulatory interference without basis, then what choice does this person wanting the genuine (not illusory) best for his community have?
Burdening all healthy people to (usually pretend to) address inevitably rare instances of abuse is insane — but insanely popular.
After several years including my very careful thought and work on the liberty and law matter, the excessive absence of certainty in language is ultimately the cause of problematic law (including its terrible slippery slope).
Vague language allows confusing law (in lawful intent, actual wording of law, and its interpretation), which facilitates corruption in law and a weed-like growth of that corruption to likely adversely affect us all.
Without a maximally objective definition of harm in our purely energetic reality, there can be no reasonable definition of law (or liberty).
Harm is (way too often ridiculously) subjectively defined, and in response, society too often remains blinded and reacting like a deer trapped in headlights.
The harm ironically from that subjective defining of harm has led to arguably the most destructive societal results (plagues and so on don’t affect as many people as hideous governance).
From Hitler and Stalin to warfare in general (including the war on some drugs ruining millions of non-violent lives) to “health guidelines” upholding gross consumption of carbohydrates, our “leaders” demonstrate themselves to be the literally most serious public concern — yet metaphorical crickets chirp as the public at large apathetically pretends to care via enabling those “leaders” with even more power (gasoline doesn’t put out a fire, but feel-good insanity couldn’t care less).
No government primarily serves the people by any demonstration. They serve themselves (including their natural extension into the private sector), and publicly leverage their definition of harm solely to (judicially or otherwise) secure their dominance.
There’s no reason to believe the logically necessary language fix will occur in our lifetime (I roughly predict it could take half a millennium to come to sufficiently popular light), but any logical advancement in that language-improving direction to secure enough momentum for traction certainly can (and should) exist.
Until sanity reigns, irrational feel-good reasoning (selective logic ignoring legitimately antagonizing and valid other logical points) continues its dominance at terrible risk (and for way too many people, pressing danger).
Despite popular illusions to the contrary, equality is not the real press by community leadership.
Morality is also not their real press.
There’s just a hypocritical political war continuously waged by the people seeking more power for themselves — by defining equality and/or morality to their strengthening (society be damned by well-disguised sociopathy as necessary).
Small business owners (including innovators against abusive business practices) operating on a tight budget are already maxed out stress-wise by just running their businesses. Adding regulatory (and correspondingly increasing tax) burdens upon their innocent shoulders means the powerful businesses thrive (perhaps abusively), because that power circumnavigates those burdens, while those respectable members of small society drown out of business.
Society is metaphorically burning by the worldwide fire of selfish hypocrisy. It’s no different than monkeys flinging crap at each other, but the collateral damage in this case is far worse than being hit by shit.
I obviously can’t put that fire out alone, but I obviously can’t ignore it either, so howl onwards to vent my legitimate concern in a dominantly demonstrably insane world.