How would you respond to this?

[OmahaBlueDog]

This is an excerpt I read today on an internet journal written by someone I know. I'm not looking to flame the guy, so I'm not providing a link. I'm just looking to put together a coherent response -- in part because I think the concept that "progressives want to build a nanny state" is going to be a repeated RW talking point this fall.

"Government exists to protect freedom, which is something we're born with that other people just seem to want to take away. The idea that it should also put food on our table, money in our pockets, pills in our mouths and ethanol in our cars is quite a leap of bad faith from that original definition. Those who make that leap have recently reclaimed the title "progressives." They frighten me. They want to build a nanny state that does everything for us, maybe and maybe not remembering that a nanny is also prone to tell you what to do and where to go. (And most of them, you'll recall from the film, look nothing like Mary Poppins.)

There are those who would argue that, to enjoy freedom, we must also be guaranteed health, an income, a home, etc. I refer them back to Mr. Jefferson. He said, "the pursuit of happiness," not the guarantee.

For me, the proper role of government is to protect my rights: Help me keep thieves and invading armies off my land, stop those who would use force against me when I'm minding my own business, assist me in the enforcement of contracts. Perhaps assist in coordinating the use of shared resources like roads and rivers. All the other things we've come to count on government for are probably more than it should be doing."

[niyad]

1. goddess forfend that we should actually act like a community, and look after each other,

and NOT rape the people, the land, the resources and our environment.

[Deja Q]

37. And those who try get shot down too...

It's a funny ol' world. :)

[jaksavage]

2. simple minded isn't he/she.

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. Are you talking about the journal writer or me?

I'll never plead guilty to having a complex mind ;-)

The writer of the excerpt, I suspect, has read too much damned Ayn Rand

[wryter2000]

3. Probably useless

But what it is about "provide for the general welfare" he doesn't understand?

And what right does a RWer have to use the founding fathers as a reference?

Or, how about challenging him to feel the same way about corporate welfare?

[OmahaBlueDog]

12. I was thinking that the founding fathers could not have presupposed the rise of capital

I think, in a real sense, to defend the core freedoms we hold dear, that government must defend the people from the power of disproportionate wealth. I think specifically of Enron; people relied on suppposedly independent accountants and auditors to prevent the gross misrepresentation of the financial status of an energy trading company. Employees who had relied on the stock of that company to ensure their retirement were ruined.

[Mojambo]

23. A few of the founders saw it coming

Hell, the East India Company was about as bad as any modern corporation today, and quite integrated with the state in Great Britain.

One founder in particular who very keenly observed the rise of capital was Alexander Hamilton. Unfortunately, he wasn't really on the side of the angels.

See my sig for Jefferson's thoughts.

[BayouBengal07]

4. I dunno about this one:

"They want to build a nanny state that does everything for us"

I thought the point of the welfare state was not to decide everything for everyone, but to give temporary assistance to those who could not get by. For comfortably upper middle class bloggers, they shouldn't have much to worry about. But for the grandmother who can't pay her medical bills there's medicare, for the hungry there's food stamps, etc. It's not like 1984.

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. .. and just how does feeding the hungry and providing medical care for all impede freedom?

Are the Swedes or the Swiss somehow less free due to state medical care?

[uberllama42]

50. I would expect a conservative to label taxes an abrogation of freedom

The idea that "the government knows how to spend your money better than you do."

I have also often heard the talking point that a universal, single-payer health system eliminates choice. The assumption is that the government is rationing health care, telling patients which practices they are allowed to visit for treatment and which treatments they are allowed to have. Personally I would prefer a non-profit entity making those decisions than a for-profit insurance firm. An efficiently administered universal system could actually greatly expand access, because every medical practice in the country could be made available to every patient as opposed to a limited number of accepted practices.

[OmahaBlueDog]

62. Actually, you could do both

You could offer choice, but take the profit motive out by requiring private providers be "mutuals" (insurors jointly and severally owned by members; profits are given back to the members as credits). The government could exert control through a) reinsurance and b) regulation. Think utilities -- before the republicants screwed them up.

I know -- I'm getting off topic in my own thread

[uppityperson]

6. I don't see gvt existing to protect freedom. I see it as (utopian I knw)...

existing to represent The People. There are things that we as individuals can get/make/afford/provide for ourselves, and things that are beyond individual ability. I see gvt as being the bigger group of People, banding together, to be able to provide things like schools, health care, food, yes even work, firefighting ability, defense, law enforcement, roads/transportation, things like that.



I do not see gvt as being apart from The People, but it has become so in a lot of ways. Any gvt employee is my employee, I am their boss since I pay taxes. Unfortunately when you get any sort of administration, upper level, mid level, lower level, it takes on a life of its own.

[LakeSamish706]

7. It would be a very sad Nation to live in, if we as a society (people) do not do everything...

reasonable in our power to help take care of one another! We have been witness to much of this during the past 7 1/2 years in this country, and for me it sucks big time. All one need do is look at Burma for examples of how we do not want our Government to be.

[Mojambo]

8. "Government exists to protect freedom"

That's a big fat FAIL in the first 5 words.

Government exists so that WE as a society can tackle problems that individuals cannot.

Jared Bernstein's book, "All Together Now" is an excellent, and very readable, primer on the differences between a YOYO (You're on your own) and a WITT (We're in this together) take on the kinds of government we can have.

Your friend could gain much from reading it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. He may not, but I'll plan to take a look at it

Thanks!

[uppityperson]

24. Exactly. That's what I wrote above but more succinctly. Than you.

[Mind_your_head]

26. Bingo!

I read the only half of that first run-on sentence, and was like "Wha???"

"Government exists to protect freedom, which is something we're born with that other people just seem to want to take away....

FAIL...is correct. Starting out with an incorrect opening statement, makes the rest of the piece totally WORTHLESS.

Governments DON'T exist to 'protect freedom'. Look at China, look at Burma, look at the Roman Empire for crikey's sake!

Maybe your friend should google up "what is the purpose of government" instead of relying on their "no child/grown-up left behind" understandings.

Thomas Jefferson has quite a bit to say about government, and the role it plays.

[n2doc]

10. Well, ask him just who should ensure that food and drugs are safe?

Since it is obvious that just letting "the market take care of things" doesn't work.

The alternative to the nanny state is the nanny corporation, and THEY are not interested at all in what you think. Or your well being. And they will tell you what to do, at the point of a hired gun if not stopped.

And, regardless of how he feels, we as a society have decided that we will not let our elderly and children die of hunger or lack of medical treatment. He may think they should be allowed to die if they aren't lucky enough to be rich, but we collectively as a nation have decided this. And that is what a democracy is, not something static to be placed behind glass and worshiped.

[OmahaBlueDog]

14. Can I plagiarize some of that?

:-)

[n2doc]

20. Have it all!

I think these folks have forgotten their history. They should read about how things used to be pre-FDR. And pre Teddy Roosevelt.

the other thing is that Government doesn't have to be an either- or proposition. There are plenty of conservative Dems who do not believe in unlimited Government intrusion.

[Posteritatis]

53. Why, clearly Holy Mother Invisible Hand will ensure that!

Only a communist could possibly imply otherwise!

(And nanny corporations are one thing, but free-market-uber-alles stuff tends to lead less to that and more to creepy old uncle corporations.)

[magellan]

11. Sorry to say this

...but I would love to take boobs like your friend and drop them back in the Great Depression to show them what happens to one's "freedom" when the majority of society around you is out of work and increasingly desperate for food, medical attention and shelter. All the protection in the world isn't going to make him/her free and safe from the evils that spring up from that situation.

Is that what they think America is about? Them and their gun against everyone else?

[Perry Logan]

13. My view is that--in an industrial, technological society--government can and should EMPOWER people.

That's my version of the liberal credo. Neocons notwithstanding, centralized government is the only way to do certain things.

The passages quoted from the internet journal express libertarian ideas, it seems to me. But libertarians are people who want to pretend the Industrial Revolution never occurred. In a complex, technological society, the government has a LOT more to do than just protect our rights.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Government does NOT exist to protect freedom. Every person on the earth is born with 'certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,'

Government is there to provide the needed things for the people, like schools and roads, and levees, and bridges, fire departments, police, etc. What government has taken away from the people is our voice. We can no longer stop the use of our military for empire, although we did not give our consent. We can no longer stop the 'give away' of our money to corporations. Government should have regulatory powers, to prevent the very thieves that get 'no bid contracts' using tax payer money.

It is the 'family values' crowd that want a 'nanny' government to tell us who we can sleep with, what to do with our own bodies, and to have laws prohibiting those we deem 'unfit' (gays, immigrants, women, etc.) from having the same rights as 'us'.

[OmahaBlueDog]

21. I can never get over the RW disconnect

They see freedom in terms of ownership -- my money, my home, my guns

They like freedom a lot less when it involves sharing. They like it less even more when it involves sharing with those unlike themselves.

[dchill]

17. "assist me in the enforcement of contracts"

Now, if one needs government for something like this, one should be aware that others who share in the privileges of citizenship have their own needs from government. And who gets to decide what shared resources actually are? Roads and rivers would be possibilities among a huge collection of others. What about oil and natural gas, what about electricity? And what about water? Is there no resource that some free-trader would not deem a commodity to be profited from, often obscenely? If we decide to have a war, should we not first show how we would be able to pay for it?

The "nanny state" is a derogatory and misleading term for "I am my brother's keeper." Suffice it to say that these "libertarian" types are always ready to respond, "I'm not your brother." They expect things to be done for them, but not for someone else with different expectations. "Government exists to protect freedom," indeed, including protection from those who feel that government should be focusing on enforcement of contracts. To a lot of thinking people, that is a scary idea - whatever limited government there is, it should be just for the advocate of that limited government.

[Mind_your_head]

28. PROFIT has become GOD!

There's NOTHING "more"

(I'm being sarcastic, but THAT is where "WE" are right now, under this fascist rule that we now live UNDER.)

[POAS]

18. Try this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Perfecting the union is the first principle. To me that includes much more than good roads and safe borders. It encompasses such things as a secure and safe commerce system including banking, trade and markets to name just three. It should of necessity include such as protection of the environment.

Establish justice means more than putting people in jail, it includes protecting the poor and minorities (of all sorts) and ensuring against what is sometimes called the tyranny of the majority.

Promote the general welfare would by any definition include seeing to the needs of those that are unable to care for themselves whether monetarily or through illness and disease. Speaking of disease wouldn't agencies like the CDC and FDA fall under that umbrella?

Secure the blessings of liberty must mean more than a safe border and safe streets. Can a person denied an education for any reason but let's say on account of race ever hope to enjoy the blessings of liberty when locked in poverty because of a flawed education?

I'm sure other examples will spring to mind but I'd start right there at the beginning of the USA.

[nosmokes]

19. beats hell outta the *nanny state for corporations* we currently have.n/t.

[Jim__]

22. The Preamble to the US Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The founders of this country used as one of the bases for the country is to promote the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare is not building a nanny state; but it is recognizing that the government has a role in helping people to get by. We can argue about the details of how far the government should go; there is no question that the government has a role.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Better we should have a government that taxes the hell out of us and leaves us vulnerable and

broke, while stripping away our civil liberties and threatening to imprison us, all the while making us a nanny state? :wtf:

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. Thank you, all who responded!

I plan to borrow (read: steal) from all of the above and shoot back a response to the journal writer. Right now, I have to go back to work.

[OmahaBlueDog]

29. OK -- I stole from most everyone in the thread, and I came up with this response.

Earlier today, I asked fellow DUers to respond to this excerpt from an internet journal entry from someone I know.

"Government exists to protect freedom, which is something we're born with that other people just seem to want to take away. The idea that it should also put food on our table, money in our pockets, pills in our mouths and ethanol in our cars is quite a leap of bad faith from that original definition. Those who make that leap have recently reclaimed the title "progressives." They frighten me. They want to build a nanny state that does everything for us, maybe and maybe not remembering that a nanny is also prone to tell you what to do and where to go. (And most of them, you'll recall from the film, look nothing like Mary Poppins.)

There are those who would argue that, to enjoy freedom, we must also be guaranteed health, an income, a home, etc. I refer them back to Mr. Jefferson. He said, "the pursuit of happiness," not the guarantee.

For me, the proper role of government is to protect my rights: Help me keep thieves and invading armies off my land, stop those who would use force against me when I'm minding my own business, assist me in the enforcement of contracts. Perhaps assist in coordinating the use of shared resources like roads and rivers. All the other things we've come to count on government for are probably more than it should be doing."

...and a bunch of great DUers responded. I stole and edited a bunch of what they wrote, and I'm planning to post it as a response on the journal. Here is what I pieced together: if anyone has any suggestions, I'm certainly open to them.

<<"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The founders of this country used as one of the bases for the country is to promote the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare is not building a nanny state; but it is recognizing that the government has a role in helping people to get by. We can argue about the details of how far the government should go; there is no question that the government has a role.

Perfecting the union is the first principle. That includes much more than good roads and safe borders. It encompasses such things as a secure and safe commerce system including banking, trade and markets to name just three. It should of necessity include such as protection of the environment.

Establish justice means more than putting people in jail, it includes protecting the poor and minorities (of all sorts) and ensuring against what is sometimes called the tyranny of the majority.

Promote the general welfare would by any definition include seeing to the needs of those that are unable to care for themselves whether monetarily or through illness and disease. Speaking of disease wouldn't agencies like the CDC and FDA fall under that umbrella?

Secure the blessings of liberty must mean more than a safe border and safe streets. Can a person denied an education for any reason but let's say on account of race ever hope to enjoy the blessings of liberty when locked in poverty because of a flawed education?

Government does not exist to protect freedom. Government is there to provide the needed things for the people, like schools and roads, and levees, and bridges, fire departments, police, etc. What government has taken away from the people is our voice. We can no longer stop the use of our military for empire, although we did not give our consent. We can no longer stop the 'give away' of our money to corporations. Government should have regulatory powers, to prevent the very thieves that get 'no bid contracts' using tax payer money.

It is the 'family values' crowd that want a 'nanny' government to tell people who they can sleep with, what to do with their own bodies, and to have laws prohibiting those deemed 'unfit' (gays, immigrants, women, etc.) from having the same rights.

We as a society have decided that we will not let our elderly and children die of hunger or lack of medical treatment. You may think they should be allowed to die if they aren't lucky enough to be rich, but we collectively as a nation have decided this. And that is what a democracy is, not something static to be placed behind glass and worshiped.

In an industrial, technological society, government can and should empower people. Neocons notwithstanding, centralized government is the only way to do certain things. The journal entry expresses libertarian ideas. It seems that libertarians are people who want to pretend the Industrial Revolution never occurred. In a complex, technological society, the government has a lot more to do than just protect our rights. >>

[some guy]

30. my thought

"For me, the proper role of government is to protect my rights: Help me keep thieves and invading armies off my land, stop those who would use force against me when I'm minding my own business, assist me in the enforcement of contracts."

vs

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's not all about you, bucko.


That's how I would respond. :)

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. I like that, too!

[ColbertWatcher]

32. My suggestion...

...use his own words against him.

"Government exists to protect freedom..."

Remind him that you're talking specifically about American government, not some obscure, random government, which can be used to keep moving the goal posts.

America's government was created based on what had existed previously with the goal of avoiding past mistakes. America's government continuously strives to do things better for more of its citizens; it does not exist in a vacuum or safely removed from reality. The most important component of America's chosen government is that it is made up of the people, by the people and for the people.

One of the things America's citizen government tries to do is provide for all its citizens. When our country started, there were only four types of citizen:
* land owning males
* males who didn't own land
* females
* slaves

We've come a long way and the government has grown the entire time based on the needs of the citizens and at the speed the citizens have dictated.

(ON EDIT fixing this sentence for grammar) It has not been easy, but we've always risen to the challenge and have forced our representatives not to betray our vision.

When America was finally ready to dissolve the institution of slavery, the government had to adapt. When women were given the right to vote, the government had to adapt. When children were no longer considered employees, the government had to adapt. To believe that any group that opposed the new way (ending slavery, allowing women to vote, preventing children from being exploited) would simply change their beliefs just because the government said so is naive. The people the government elected to represent them had to have something to back up the laws they created and provide an infrastructure that insured checks and balances, a capacity for citizen to petition any redress and a way to change or amend any existing law.

If there is a sincere belief that the government is becoming too much of a "nanny state", but our government allows for any dissent or disapproval without punishment.

The government also allows, however, for programs and structures that prevent a minority from losing protections based on the beliefs of a majority. That's why we longer have slaves, women can vote and children can get an education to learn about their government instead of working a job they may not be ready for.

(Hope that helps)

[OmahaBlueDog]

33. It does help -- thanks!

[ColbertWatcher]

34. You're welcome, I had to change some of the grammar. n/t

[jaksavage]

35. The journal writer is a simpleton

not the messenger.

[OmahaBlueDog]

36. So, after stealing from all of you, I posted a response and this is what I got back

I posted

"The American government does not exist to protect freedom

'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

The American government does not exist to protect freedom - at least not exclusively. America's government was created based on what had existed previously with the goal of avoiding past mistakes. America's government continuously strives to do things better for more of its citizens; it does not exist in a vacuum or safely removed from reality. The most important component of America's chosen government is that it is made up of the people, by the people and for the people.

Promoting the general welfare is not building a nanny state; but it is recognizing that the government has a role in helping people to get by. We can argue (well, you hate to argue according to your previous journal entry -- maybe exchange ideas is a better term) about the details of how far the government should go; there is no question that the government has a role. Promoting the general welfare would, by any definition, include seeing to the needs of those that are unable to care for themselves whether monetarily or through illness and disease. This would also include everything from agencies like the CDC and FDA to other common needs, like schools, roads, dams, levees, tunnels, bridges, fire departments and police, etc. Perfecting the union includes much more than good roads and safe borders. It encompasses secure and safe commerce system including banking, trade and markets. It should, of necessity, include protection of the environment. Establishing justice means more than putting people in jail, it includes protecting the poor and minorities (of all sorts) and ensuring against what is sometimes called the tyranny of the majority.

It is the 'family values' crowd that want a 'nanny' government to tell people who they can sleep with, what to do with their own bodies, and to have laws prohibiting those deemed 'unfit' (gays, immigrants, etc.)from having the same rights."

(and I thank everyone, again, who responded to my OP)

And I got this back:

"Here I see no room for argument between us, because we're diametrically opposed. The title of your post sums it up. If the government tries to provide a livelihood for people, instead of protecting their right to earn a livelihood, it cannot protect freedom. It can protect a limited set of rights, like who we sleep with, how we worship, what we say. But it can't ensure that we get to do what we wish with our own bodies. In order to provide a livelihood for those who don't earn one, government must take money from those who have it. Those who have it always includes those who earn it, no matter what lies are peddled about just taxing 'the very rich.'

If someone's taking my money, the product of my labor, they're telling me what I can and can't do with my body and my mind. And I would warn against the belief that it's only the family values crowd that tries to maintain a nanny state. FDR is an icon to progressives / liberals. He was the king of America's nanny state. Were he alive today, I've no doubt he would champion gay rights, and probably would want a liberal immigration policy. But he'd be strengthening his nanny state all the while. "

edit --- pasting error

[Deja Q]

38. About labor

"If someone's taking my money, the product of my labor, they're telling me what I can and can't do with my body and my mind. And I would warn against the belief that it's only the family values crowd that tries to maintain a nanny state. FDR is an icon to progressives / liberals. He was the king of America's nanny state. Were he alive today, I've no doubt he would champion gay rights, and probably would want a liberal immigration policy. But he'd be strengthening his nanny state all the while. "


How about the workers who get paid minimum wage by Company X or Corporation Y? Do they not have a say, especially if they are trying to raise families?

Besides, the government bailing out immoral lending firms (while, so far, by and large ignoring those who took the loans) -- is that not part of a nanny state too? Definition is a many splintered thing.

[OmahaBlueDog]

41. How 'bout labor

<<How about the workers who get paid minimum wage by Company X or Corporation Y? Do they not have a say, especially if they are trying to raise families?>>

My guess is that the answer would be "if you don't like the wages -- don't work there. Work somewhere else or start your own business."

My question would be this: Near your house, a scientist decides to mix chemicals. In the process, he inadvertantly creates a very toxic mixture, kills himself, and poisons the community well water. Many members of the community drink the water, and are not killed, but are permanantly debilitated. A review of the estate of the scientist indicates that he died without a particularly large savings, and no insurance to speak of.

What should happen?

a) The debilitated members of the community should either pay for medical care themselves, their families should pay,

b) They should throw themselves to the mercy of churches and charities. Society has no obligation to take care of this problem. or

c) Communities should band together and take care of the injured in a circumstance like this. Perhaps, the community should even consider laws to limit where chemicals can be mixed, or to require assurances that chemicals won't run into wells.

Color me Marry Poppins, but I vote "C"

<<Besides, the government bailing out immoral lending firms (while, so far, by and large ignoring those who took the loans) -- is that not part of a nanny state too? Definition is a many splintered thing.>>

I always find certain rationales by the wingnuts to be headscratchers. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Government aiding business is good, but aiding individuals is bad.

Income tax and estate taxes are bad; national sales tax is good

Single payer national health insurance is bad; $5000 deductible major medical and HSAs are good

Movies and books containing war and violence are good; movies and books containing sex are pornograpghy -- and are evil

One worker bargaining with a boss is business; 10 workers, banding together to bargain with a business owner, is communism

[ColbertWatcher]

40. Wow.

Here I see no room for argument between us, because we're diametrically opposed.

What does that even mean? We're not going to argue, because you're wrong!

Or did I misread that?

If someone's taking my money, the product of my labor, they're telling me what I can and can't do with my body and my mind.

That's just too funny. Is he just pulling your leg? Is he an Ayn Rand bot? This cannot possibly be a real, adult person.

You must post more of his stuff, it's like Saturday morning funnies!

[Unvanguard]

58. There are so many problems with that "product of labor" argument

that I'm not sure where to begin.

Here's a clever argument you might want to use: ask him how much "product" he would have if he were alone, with only his own labor. And tell him he can keep all of that... but not to complain about the rest.

:)

[RedCappedBandit]

39. He has the definition of government wrong..

the rest of his rant is pure BS. I don't think it even deserves a response.

[OmahaBlueDog]

42. ..but he distilled the modern conservative movement perfectly

<<In order to provide a livelihood for those who don't earn one, government must take money from those who have it. Those who have it always includes those who earn it, no matter what lies are peddled about just taxing 'the very rich.' >>

Translation: We the wealthy earned our money and see no reason to help out the less fortunate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. A society is judged by how it cares for its least able

Government exists to protect its people. Poor people are not free. Uneducated people are not free. For everyone to truly be free, their basic needs must be met.

[OmahaBlueDog]

44. That's what I always thought

Maybe I read Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair when I (obviously) should have been Ayn Rand :sarcasm:

"...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

I know we're all hell-bound hethans on this site, but I thought that was an appropriate citation of scripture in this instance.

[mach2]

45. I am absolutely against a nanny-state. If someone can't afford toilet paper, I'll gladly chip in

to buy them some but don't ask me to wipe their ass with it.
;-)

[OmahaBlueDog]

55. If they couldn't afford TP, I could suggest "The Fountainhead"

...but that would be wrong ;-)

[mach2]

56. Just now I actually did laugh out loud! It doesn't happen all that often.

:D

[Blue_Tires]

46. for all the "nanny state" talk, i'm willing to bet

that clown was a HUGE supporter of the patriot act when it came out...what amuses me is conservatives become all "freedom-loving," anti-government and libertarian when dems have a chance to have the white house and congress, while these same people shat on their hands when bush-ashcroft-et at were swiping away their "freedoms"

i know plenty of people with this same mindset...

[OmahaBlueDog]

52. I'll bet if a strip-club opened up on the property next door, he'd embrace zoning!

Funny how that always works...

[Lost-in-FL]

47. Is he/she reading Ayn Rand?

[OmahaBlueDog]

48. Yup

[Lost-in-FL]

49. He/She's a very confused person then.

Or self-centered and individualistic. I mentioned Rand cause your statement seemed like cutting and pasting something from her book.

[MasonJar]

51. Well, the people in charge right now are certainly not progressives

and they have not protected anyone's rights. They have obliterated them! They also have begun unjust wars and refused to provide funds for the roads, bridges and rivers. Also these losers have taken the taxpayers' money not to help fellow citizens who need it (which you obviously agree is the right course), but instead have given massive amounts of money to corporations which have off-shore accounts and pay no taxes (but continue to use our roads and bridges and rivers virtually for free, often imposing massive ruin on said areas) or to oil, etc. companies that are reaping incredible profits at taxpayer expense. This is wrong; if it is in anyway acceptable, how?

[sendero]

54. Sounds like your typical libertarian moron...

... these people by and large cannot be helped. There is just something missing in their brains.

[Unvanguard]

57. Actually, Thomas Jefferson's phrasing is quite interesting.

He says "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... but the phrase is clearly echoing Locke, who says "Life, liberty, and estate."

Why the switch from "estate" (property) to "pursuit of happiness"? Perhaps because he wished to suggest that there were rights more fundamental than property... rights that should be protected even over those of property. Like the right to have meaningful economic opportunity--which Jefferson thought of in terms of owning land, owning one's own means of production. Modern welfare does not encompass the same ideal, but this is because of the realities of modern capitalism, not "nanny state" attitudes on the part of liberals. If we wanted to do better, we would have to get rid of capitalism, which is not exactly a popular proposal at the moment.

More fundamentally, he is wrong to suggest that government social programs have nothing to do with freedom. Social programs concretely enhance the freedom of the power, by weakening their dependence on abusive or exploitative employers and expanding the opportunities and services open tom them. They also are themselves an expression of collective freedom, of the capacity for the people to decide for themselves what kind of society they want to live in, and not to have it imposed upon them by the people who control the wealth.

Property itself, it is often forgotten, is an artificial creation of social regulation; we may be born with freedom, but we are not born owning factories. Its only value is its capacity to serve the public good--and if taxation or regulation is the way to help it better do so, in no way does that impinge upon anyone's rightful freedom.

[OmahaBlueDog]

60. Can I steal this?

[Unvanguard]

61. Go ahead. The ideas are the important thing.

And it's not like they're original on my part, either. :)

[salguine]

59. I think that's fine. But

if he's ever in trouble and needs help, he shouldn't get any. That's how he wants it.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

63. Is it a Nanny State

When a government helps it poorest citizens afford things the wealthy and middle class take for granted such as good schools, affordable health care, nutrition programs, & affordable transportation? Should the children of the poor have no assistance in escaping the poverty they were born into?

Do we guarantee them a lesser chance to excel, or does government have in it's contract with it's people the obligation to see that the starting line is as fair as can be set? I believe it does.

For the indolent by choice, there is little any government can or should do.

For the innocent who have yet to truly make any choices in life, a great nation does not leave them disadvantaged by birth.