I guess you support progressive or liberal policies as long as they benefit you, but if they don’t benefit you, you couldn’t care less???
I'll start with this, since it puts some of the most basic concepts on the table for further elaboration.
I don't know that I support any liberal policies; there may be a few at the most that I'm lukewarm/ambivalent about. But generally I conceive of myself as roughly the opposite of a liberal.
If by "progressive" you mean policies that are designed to support the poor, working class, and otherwise disadvantaged, I'm economically far-left, and so I do support most of what counts as
economically progressive policy (social is a different story), while generally wishing for a considerably more extreme version than what is offered. For example, a public healthcare option is quite a ways short of what I would like to see.
Do I only support progressive policies when they benefit me? I think strictly speaking there is some truth to that. Philosophically I'm of the view that individual social attitudes are formed in the context of discernment of what is beneficial to the survival and thriving of the individual, albeit in a way that we mostly aren't conscious of. So if I have come to care about certain family members and friends, at root it is (often unconsciously) because I have recognized these individuals as playing a role in my own thriving.
But I'll set that aside because that's really more analysis of underlying causes of attitudes and not of immediate political import. What is important is the fact that there are people I care about, and am invested in their doing well. I'm also aware of how interrelated my situation is and tied up in the success or failure of those I'm connected to. So, I know that often it is the case that what benefits my community will somewhere down the line benefit me, even if it isn't of direct benefit to me. Also, more broadly speaking I don't see politics through the scarcity lens that fiscal conservatives are so attached to, so I tend to be amenable to economically progressive policies even if it it's not immediately apparent how they would be even indirectly related to my affairs. So in this sense, the answer to your question is effectively a fairly solid "No."
Also, aren’t libertarians usually of poor character? I mean, the libertarian philosophy is pretty selfish to begin with.
In its most authentic theoretical form, libertarianism is just as much about determining the sort of political arrangement that would best ensure the welfare of the members of a society.
I happen to think their theory is drastically wrong, but to sincerely claim it's all just about selfishness is pretty superficial and intellectually uncharitable.
And honestly, you of all people being opposed to a libertarian is pretty ironic considering you posted the following in the coronavirus thread:
View attachment 27164701
Isn’t that as Libertarian...
No. Nothing of what I said has anything to do with opposing government interventions on the assumption that they are inherently damaging to the exercise of individual liberty. I'm not even really concerned in the first place with individual liberty like a libertarian is.
and selfish as you can get?
I would also say that this is quite wrong, but it's beyond the scope of questioning me about my politics now, and I don't care to indulge your scrutinizing of my character.
Most of your posts center around you and what you think would be best for you. You’re always “Me, me, me!”
I don't think this is technically true, but if you mean that some of my social and political commentary prioritizes individuals seeking out what contributes to their thriving, that much I recognize as true. I think self-serving motivations lie at the root of all of our attitudes and choices. Unfortunately we often vainly delude ourselves into thinking that we can and ought to act truly selflessly; this ideology often leads to an unhealthy suppression of our natural inclinations to seek out what is best for us. Why do you point this out? Is there a problem?
You’re even against getting a COVID-19 vaccine to help us achieve herd immunity and protect those who can’t get a vaccine due to vulnerable immune systems. How is that so different from being a Libertarian who doesn’t want the government intervening in their life so they can do whatever the hell they want?
I never said it was a problem for the government to enforce severe regulations for disease control. Libertarians object to government interventions because they see them as infringing upon individual liberties. As I said, that's not something I'm concerned about. I'm entirely supportive the government enacting and enforcing such policies, when they are
actually beneficial to society overall (this is not necessarily the same as what will keep a minority of at risk populations from having to practice extreme caution to keep themselves safe).
I disagree with the continuation of lockdowns in this case because I think they are doing more significant and lasting damage to the average American than the coronavirus even has any potential to. Most of us are getting screwed by this situation, while, if you've looked at recent corporate earnings, the wealthy are sitting pretty. To sacrifice the welfare of most Americans so that the rich can get richer and a slim minority of the population can live a few years longer doesn't seem like good policy to me. It seems motivated by a naive idea of "We have to keep as many alive for as long as we can because that's the righteous, caring thing to do!" Possibly noble (if I'm being generous), but putting everything on hold to try to keep every last person safe is less effective (and honest) than one might suppose, and it puts at risk many more things that are likely more important.