We could call that "Progressive," then, and it may very well be that that's what the American left is morphing into, at least once we sort out these niggling issues with gay rights, since the objectives of the new left do seem to resemble what we openly called the Progressive movement exactly 100 years ago, and that movement too had some darker sides to it (namely Eugenics), and we can largely draw similarities

Of course where the disagreements lie is whether or not these changes truly entail "Progress," or what we're trying to progress towards, but that might be a better term for it in either event, as i agree the movement has gotten paternalistic, but i disagree that that is inherently a bad thing on its face, just that more effective methods of social engineering need to be found, to get people to eat right, for instance, as that seems to be one point about which it is hard to disagree that leaving things to themselves hasn't really worked out that well

Paternalism is certainly a bad thing when the people running the show are such complete fucking morons. Progressives would probably get a lot farther by demanding accountability and competence from government than they have gotten by changing their label every 20 years or so whenever people have finally had it with their creepy busybodying.

Obviously people are getting fatter, but I rather disagree that we've left things to themselves to the extent that the government has incentivized a great deal of laziness. And I strongly disagree that it should matter whether or not a person chooses to eat right, anyway. At least, it shouldn't matter to anyone who isn't that person. The only way a person's fat-assedness becomes a "public health concern" is if said ass is polluting the public water supply or if we're picking up their medical bills, which we should not be.

Which reminds me: one of the (many, many) things that stupifies me about the left is their constant concern that we "have to do something" about obesity, which more often than not seems to mean banning more shit, yet the same people usually believe that legalizing drugs is the way to go because prohibition has always failed, and besides, it's a person's own goddamn business what they put in their body anyway. Seems... inconsistent, especially in the context of what obesity and drug abuse both do to health care costs, and I can't help but think this isn't based on any science or logic whatsoever, but rather on the fact that drugs are still kind of seen as cool due to the stupid fucking '60s. Goddamn, what a shitty decade. (But then again, so was this past one.) Can you explain that one to me? It really does drive me batty.

Wrong.

Modern day conservatives want liberty and freedom - but primarily for market sectors, and not personal sectors. That is 'conservative' as most nations have had less regulation/economic controls in the past, thus they want to 'conserve' this. Likewise, most personal freedoms have been restricted in the past, thus want to 'conserve' it.

Likewise, modern day liberals want the opposite of this - market restrictions and personal freedoms.

I  for one am one of those stick-in-the-muds who is opposed to legalization, but that could be my lingering resentment from living in the same campus-house as a bunch of potheads my freshman year

Part of it is certainly cultural, as it is in many cases (like the righties who screech about a babies right to life and then cheer when criminals get zapped), but i think there is a bit of logic there, at least as far as marijuana goes. Aside from lung cancer possibilities, weed might pose less of a social burden than obesity, which leads more imminently to public bads (and these would be public burdens even if government were removed from the healthcare equation entirely, an unhealthy society would raise costs of healthcare across the board for raising demand, while the supply of health care is reasonably static, and pouring more resources into health care is nonproductive from an opportunity cost standpoint), so free-market or regulated, we have incentive to make sure people are healthy. Obese persons are more limited in the range of jobs in which they could engage as well, moreso than someone who smokes weed

Harder drugs i would certainly oppose having legalized, certainly not ecstasy, meth, or heroin, and i'm on the fence about marijuana

That being said, i'm also opposed to food bans. I'd rather see incentives in place for better access to healthier food, or straight incentives or disincentives for healthier living imposed on the people

Actually, there is significant bias in academia that is widely accepted even within academia; they typicall dismiss it as "Competent conservatives choose the private sector" and completely negate the fact that in the highly subjective liberal arts fields you have to accept and promote the professors worldview to get good grades. There is a large number of conservative academics who claim that they have to stay "in the closet" about their political views for fear of reprecussions.

Years ago I was in university and taking a sociology course and I had a professor who worked in both Women's Studies and Sociology. One of my friends was at the top of the class until our mid-term paper where he foolishly accepted my dare to choose the topic about pay-equity and argue that the disparity in pay between women and men was mostly caused by the choices women and men make. His paper was far better written than mine, his argument was better researched and supported and yet I received a B+ while he received an F. He protested with the dean who remarked his paper and gave him an A. Every paper he handed in after that also received a D or an F, and he repeatedly visited the dean to get his paper remarked where he would get an A.

There are countless simple minded academics who will punish students that don't puppet their worldview, and (quite regularly) their worldview is a socialist/communist worldview.

Well, economic liberalism is only a small part of overall liberalism. Overall conservatives still don't care much for freedom or liberty.

i couldnt be more serious.

and yes universities do indoctrinate. 97% of proffessors are liberals. they push their ideology on student, and punish those with differeing views (you might not experience this because youre not in America). they have no fear of repercusions because of tenure.  and colleges get favorable treatment by our government becasue they push out (liberal) voters and politicians. they get a constant base, and in turn "help" te universities. incompetent proffessors dont get fired and get away with everythiing.

as for the other thing, i suggest you watch our news. its apparrent that you do not

aslo for you other posts. modern day conservates (not establishment conservatives, im talking new tea party ones) stand for individual freedom, thats why liberatarians have teamed up with them.

since about a hundred years ago, starting back with woodrow wilson (some could argue TR) the liberal idealogy got hijacked by the progressive. they stand for inti democracy (including censor ship of other ideas, ex. your only a bigot or close minded if you disagree with them), anti-freedom, pro-totalitarian governement.

as for the topic at hand, i suggest you read liberal fascism, by Jonah Goldberg

Given that you've never held a job, run a business, or hired anyone, I believe you don't know enough about the subject to make such an assertion.

Economic liberty to those that work, employ people, or run a business is just as valid as those that engage in personal liberties. Furthermore, heavily liberal ideologies also support redistribution of all workers' incomes in various fashions means that they are directly pre-empting your work with their own views of where your livelihood should go. Additionally, it means in some cases, you may or may not buy certain goods or services to which they deem are improper for society (such as fatty food taxes, wage and salary caps by economic sector, price controls). These things are just as egregious as the state deciding who you can marry, what you can say in a public domain, what you may smoke or drink, and the like.