a question of values ....

[wotmaniac]

bauglir -- that completely misses my point, and is devoid of context -- but whatever.

altpersona --
well, let's first establish some baseline definitions (that is, at least in respect to this particular discussion):
"liberty" -- I like the "definition" that was posed earlier on this thread -- freedom of choice (which, in and of itself, could be further discussed).
"nanny-state" -- when the gov't "provides" for its people, en lieu of encouraging self-reliance.
some other baseline assumptions:
- within a "free" society, one cannot exercise their liberty to the point of violating someone else's liberty -- otherwise, said society is not really free.  hence the phrase "your rights end where mine begin".
- allowing the gov't to have power/control over an aspect of your life (regardless of degree), is, by definition, trading away a piece of your liberty.

Now, I believe that the government's role is pretty much:
- protect the rights of its citizens
- provide for the common defense
Properly motivated, we (as citizens) can pretty much take care of the rest.  Sure, it takes a lot of work and self-discipline, but that's the point -- this is the source of exceptionalism, which drives innovation, progress, advancement, etc.

The idea of the gov't providing options also means that the gov't controls what options are available, and how those options are to be exercised.  Where's the liberty in that?

But guess what?  When ever the gov't decides to provide for a certain aspect of our lives, then they have just disincentive-ized  people to provide for themselves.  By disincentive-izing this self-reliance, you have just created the environment for people to hand-over their responsibility in this aspect of their lives.  And, as is the nature of incrementalism, we don't do this all at once -- it happens a little at a time.

This reminds me of 2 quotes on this one (and yes, I do indeed throw around a lot of quotes -- it helps to provide some context as to why such ideas are important):

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -- (while Gerald Ford said this at one point, the original quote has been so often misattributed that I can't reliably say who originally said it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ7LcplfkgY    (fast-forward to about 2:05)

Also, throw in the previously-stated Franklin quote (though, there seems to be some discrepancy as to whether it was "safety" or "security").

What is the point of that?  Well, how often is that a gov't will voluntarily give up power once it has seized it?  The gov't is constantly passing new laws and regulations that give them more power, and most of it done without us knowing about it until it is way too late (rarely is any one bit overwhelming, but it is an accumulation that hurts).


ARGH -- I hate having to go to work -- I'll be back later tonight.
in the meantime, I'll leave you with these.
Also, the reason I keep going back to these same people, is that they all warned us about all the b.s. that we have going on today.
c-ya in about 10 hours.

[Tshern]

The so called liberty state also means that not everyone has chances of succeeding and just because corporate swines want everyone else to be equal in misery. This is because the rich rule and with money comes power and power does whatever it wants.

[yellerSumner]

"nanny-state" -- when the gov't "provides" for its people, en lieu of encouraging self-reliance.

I thought the nanny-state was more about protecting its citizens from themselves. Seat belt and helmet laws for example.

Now, I believe that the government's role is pretty much:
- protect the rights of its citizens
- provide for the common defense
Properly motivated, we (as citizens) can pretty much take care of the rest.  Sure, it takes a lot of work and self-discipline, but that's the point -- this is the source of exceptionalism, which drives innovation, progress, advancement, etc.

I think part of what this discussion will come down to is what are rights and what are privileges.

[Alastar]

You should also factor in human nature in there.

[InnaBinder]

Quoting my old Economics teacher here:  The biggest problem with encouraging everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is that some folks are without shoes.

[veekie]

I think part of what this discussion will come down to is what are rights and what are privileges.

Well considering the lot of them(rights, that is) are artificial constructs, it's just the lowest  common denominators amongst privileges that most people agreed on.

It is only logical to have the bulk of society start at a position where they can improve themselves, rather than many years of work into 'not dying' and thus, leaving the world no better from when they came in. That, is the fundamental purpose of universal healthcare, and a functional welfare system, much like farming feeds enough people that they can focus on more than day to day living, allowing civilization as we know it to be.

[Bauglir]

bauglir -- that completely misses my point, and is devoid of context -- but whatever.

Oh, I know, it wasn't exactly aimed at you. It was just something you'd reminded me of, and I thought it might get a laugh in the conversation, which I always find is helpful for relieving tension, which in turn helps prevent flamewars (which tend to happen whenever anything serious, such as this, gets discussed).

[wotmaniac]

bauglir -- that completely misses my point, and is devoid of context -- but whatever.

Oh, I know, it wasn't exactly aimed at you. It was just something you'd reminded me of, and I thought it might get a laugh in the conversation, which I always find is helpful for relieving tension, which in turn helps prevent flamewars (which tend to happen whenever anything serious, such as this, gets discussed).

good call
I did get a bit of a chuckle

[EjoThims]

nanny state -versus- liberty and self-reliance

First and foremost, these are not mutually exclusive.

You have the right and responsibility to civil disobedience, provided you are self reliant enough to accept the consequences of said action.

Don't wear your seat belt if you don't want to, but be prepared to face the fine and the potential injuries. Same with doing drugs.

Secondly, there is a difference between a welfare state and a nanny state.

Thirdly, a self-reliance society is not what I wish to take part in. I do not want to live in a place where the government can't even be bothered to provided education, roads, or police, and I am appalled at the thought that there are people who do, because there is only one reason for it: they want others to be denied what the government currently provides.

No one says that public education is bad (badly executed is different) unless they could provide private education for their own children and don't want the children of those who can't to receive said education.

Fourthly, you are wrong are the lack of incentive. The private option will always be better than the public, and there will (sadly) always be an incentive to toss more money at a situation to make yourself better than those around you. Private schools are better than public. PIs and private security tends to be more effective than the police (especially since they tend to not care as much about the actual laws to do their job). Private healthcare will be better than any public option released (and just like with schools, prices of it will drop as a result of the competition).

There is no reason whatsoever that the masses should be denied the basic things needed to get by in whatever society you live in except for greed and arrogance.

[Ruam]

Indeed, people who think that those with low-pay jobs only have themselves to blame for not being able to provide health-care for themselves and their family are a few fries short of a happy meal. I challenge anyone to actually mean that the society today could manage without clerks, cleaners, fast-food places, and so on. All of these people are needed today, simply because they need a job we can't afford to give higher salary should not mean they should be denied health-care and a basic education?

"Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us." - Tyler Durden

[Kuroimaken]

I have nothing against religion, and in fact commend those who are able to wholeheartedly devout themselves to it - it actually takes a lot of willpower to do that. I do not, however, enjoy the idea of religion curtailing either someone's freedom or choice, and even less the idea of being imposed on by religious beliefs.

It should be noted that I also hate political correctness as being THE most hypocritical concept on the universe, and therefore hate the notion of making everything squeaky-clean to "respect religious freedom". I'm not going to come out and say "hey, Jesus used to suck cock" for no reason, but the moment someone yells at me for looking at a girl in a bikini saying lust is a deadly sin and whatnot, or censor my favorite TV shows/anime/whatever for "offending religious sensitivities", I AM going to flip the PC idiot the bird. But that's an issue with PC, not religion specifically.