Are 'liberals' who favor more laws regulating each individual's life

[ConsAreLiars]

Poll question: Are 'liberals' who favor more laws regulating each individual's life

closet fascists, too frightened to think straight, provocateurs posing as liberals, sincere in their belief that increased state power over individuals serves the greater good in these cases, too uninformed to see alternatives to more laws, selfishly hoping for new jobs in the enforcement industries to open up, willing to trade liberty for just about anything that seems good, or other?

(This is in response to a series of threads advocating that dog owners be registered like sex offenders or for mandatory classes for dog owners, in order to protect against dog bite incidents, mandatory prenatal care and treatments for pregnant women to protect the fetus, mandatory classes for new parents, and similar views occasionally expressed in other contexts.)

In my view, obviously a half-adequate public education system and social services network would be preferable to more laws, but apparently others prefer a stricter and more comprehensive set of laws and regulations. Votes were around 3:2 in favor of mandatory classes and such. The question is why.

[applegrove]

1. Liberals want people & governments to think for themselves. What

works best is tried. Various groups are catered to.

The neocons are the ones who want a country of one mind controlled by them.

The issue isn't government control..that translates to regulations to the rabid corporations who are bad corporate citizens. The issue is control.

Who is in control.

Who do you want to be in control. An agenda planned by and catered to the needs of corporations & the elites? Or some control to legislate..norms in the hands of government.

[Mythsaje]

3. Regulating corporations is one thing

regulating citizens quite another.

I think a lot of these "feel good" notions suck... I'm for SOCIAL pressure to solve some of these problems--not more laws for people to ignore or bitch about. Or both.

[applegrove]

9. Corporations don't even follow the laws on the books. They fund

elections to get the laws taken off the books and that is taught in MBA school.

It is about power. Who do you want to be the top dog. The elites? Or the government that represents all the people.

[ConsAreLiars]

11. `Your belief is that the US government represents all the people?

Would be nice, if true, and it is a wonderful goal. But it is very far from reality. The laws and regulations being discussed and advocated on DU, which I referenced in my poll question, are not intended in any way to restrict the power of corporations. Quite the opposite. They are intended to control and restrict individuals. Not one of them would have any effect whatsoever on corporations or their power.

[applegrove]

33. We talk about regulations too on the DU. I'm saying don't get caught

up in a disgussion on powers when the very powers you are talking about are being filtered away into the hands of the elites.

[Mythsaje]

12. The government doesn't

represent ALL the people. It has NEVER represented ALL the people--it occasionally represents certain segments of society, but can't, by definition, represent everyone.

When it was explained to the Hopi how America's democracy allegedly worked, they were aghast, asking, yeah, but what about the minorities? Their voice is just as important as the majorities. The Hopi, apparently, mastered the art of compromise. They'd continue to hash out a subject until everyone was satisfied with the result.

Our problem isn't JUST the corporations. It's everyone who decides that THEY know what's right for everyone--the people who want to legislate OUR behavior to "make us safer" or prevent people from doing foolish things--you run into the danger of allowing the "best intentions" crowd from gathering paving stones for the road to hell.

Take the drug war. Please. But seriously...how many "liberals" have taken a stand against its sheer stupidity? Even though it's obviously racist in origin and current application.

[applegrove]

34. Some drugs are dangerous & ruin lives. Some not so much. Concentrate

on the devastating & addictive ones.

[Mythsaje]

39. Exactly...

And, again, education is the key. Honest education. One cannot demonize a relatively harmless drug like pot and not expect many people to catch on to the fact that what you're telling them doesn't seem quite right, leading them to naturally assume that EVERYTHING you're telling them about drugs is, at best, questionable.

I'm amused by a "don't do drugs" message in a culture inundated with regular drug commercials on TV and a general "better living through chemistry" society.

Talk about a "mixed message."

[applegrove]

47. But food & videos should be regulated. Especially where they have

proven to be dangerous by science. Government does represent more of the people than the neocons & their elites do. You have to admit that. I mean - welfar, SS, health & safety regulations, transparency in the markets, banking laws, tight money policy, progressive taxation, Affirmative Actions, reproductive health rights, criminal law, property law, aviation standards, drug programs, head - start,

All these programs we have and have built up. They help the poor, middle class & the rich - some not so much others - but they are all represented in that mix.

Government does a better job at that than the elites or the corporations. You have to admit that.

[BoardExplode]

58. Excuse me but did you just say videos have been proven dangerous?

What the fuck does that mean?

[Mythsaje]

65. Government IS made of the elites

or haven't you been paying attention?

Lawyers make up 90% of our federal and state governments. If lawyers aren't part of the elite, what are they? They make the rules, they interpret the rules, and they change them to suit themselves.

What do you mean regulating food and videos? I want the government to leave my personal choice alone. Regulate my videos? What the fuck does that mean?

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Like, for example, the wine in your avatar?

Alcohol can be extremely devastating, and for the percentage of the population that has a propensity towards alcoholism, it is EXTREMELY addicting. (Actually, if you drink a fifth of jack daniels every day for a year, and then try to stop, you, too will find that it is very addictive) But prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs.

The question isn't just "which drugs are dangerous, and to whom", it's also "what do we do about that?".. Specifically, do we turn drug users into criminals and blow 20 billion a year on a "drug war" aimed mostly at pot? Or do we plow some of that money into REAL education (because the best advertisement against, say, meth is meth users themselves..... however, no teenager is going to buy ANYTHING the government has to say about drugs once they've been told that smoking a joint will get them date-raped or cause their testicles to shrivel up and fall off) and treatment, and then at the end of the day accept that consenting adults are going to make their own decisions about their own bodies... and live with that, even if they are sometimes bad or dumb ones?

[Guaranteed]

56. APPLEGROVE!

THERE we agree!!!

Now, read over your post again! :)

[MisterP]

2. note that that's CATO's line and, by direct cause and effect,

the corporations'

[Mythsaje]

4. Thus exposes my problem

with the Libertarians...they seem to believe it's okay to trade state control for corporate control. I'm not all that happy with either, personally.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Which of those alternatives is the corporatist's line?

My view is that CATO and their ilk use "individual liberty" arguments only as a facade for increased power and "freedom" from regulation for corporations and big money. That's what they get paid for, anyway. None of the examples cited have anything to do with restricting coporate power - indeed most would give greater power to them at the price of individual freedom. Which is why I was surprised to see so many voting for more chains on individuals and in favor of more state (corporate) power.

[Lannes]

5. Those are the extreme cases

Most of our problems have come from de-regulation.Allowing corporations to rob and destroy this country without facing any consequences.Nothing new,but nothing this bad since the 19th century.

The regulations chipping away our freedoms have come mostly from the right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I believe the state has a responsibility to

insure a more stable and well educated society.

And I would rather see tax dollars spent to improve our lives here than sent overseas to fight an unjust war.

[ConsAreLiars]

8. Well, of course.

But should the tax money be used in building more "enforcement" agencies and restrictions, or on education and social service. Some think making more things illegal is an answer. I think making more services available is better than more laws forcing certain classes of individuals into compliance with gov't mandates, and criminalizing (jailing, fining, whatever) the non-compliant.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Of course I favor education and social service

but we also need enforcement agencies. Maybe I am a skeptic; I have seen far too much bad parenting. But I really think the state has an obligation to protect kids- its neediest citizens.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Protect kids, yes. Use "protecting kids" as an excuse to micro-manage the

affairs of consenting adults, I have a problem with.

Yes, by all means, when you're talking about kids it's a different story. But I'm firmly of the opinion that adults should be free to make up their own minds about what to do with, say, their own bodies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Too many consenting adults

make bad decisions where their children are concerned. Until we can educate and help parents be better parents, we need to look out for kids.

[Mythsaje]

66. You know what?

That idea frightens me. Government impersonalizes that which it tries to help. Law trumps justice and the purpose behind the law often gets lost.

You want to hand power like that over to a government that's trying a little girl for felony assault for trying to protect herself?

No thanks.

[Mythsaje]

14. Yep...

education is the key. Changing things by social pressure than by legal pressure, which is nowhere near as effective.

[seabeyond]

93. kinda like you are a bad mom if you dont breast feed?

or a bad person if you smoke?

or abusing children if you spank as a tool of discipline?

that kinda social pressure.
yup, we do use strong arm tactics for social pressure. it is effective.

[mongo]

10. I was astonished by some of the threads today

Especially the mandatory dog class thread - actually that had MORE support than the namdatory pre-natal care thread. WTF does that say about the authoritarian left? They care more about animals than people?

The autoritarian element of the left is what the RW uses to scare the willies out of the average American.

As to why they think they can run my life better than I can? Hell if I know.

[Mythsaje]

15. I have said

that I believe canine behavior classes SHOULD be taught in our schools...kids should be taught to understand it early...we share our world with dogs and a lot of people are woefully ignorant about the simplest aspects of their behavior.

A lot of problems would be avoided if we simply educated people about the animals.

[ConsAreLiars]

17. Public school education regarding dogs would do a lot more than that.

Apart from the practical value of understanding how the dog's "worldview" needs to be understood for practical reasons and to benefit dog and human alike, it would be a great case-in-point lesson for kids who are just beginning to "decenter" and learn to see the world from the perspective of others and thus make rational choices. The vicious greedy monsters now in control of the gov't depend on ignorance and egocentrism and narrow "me" based reactions in order to get away with their con.

[Mythsaje]

18. Great perspective...

I definitely have to agree. One of the things that probably led me to Progressive thought was that I was raised to see things from animal points of view at times. We had dogs, cats, and, for several years, had a small working ranch with goats, rabbits, chickens, pigs, and a horse.

And I volunteer in canine rescue now.

Such classes would good idea for a variety of reasons...unfortunately I haven't heard anyone else ever bring it up.

[seabeyond]

22. not everyone likes animals, aaahhm, gasp. yup n/t

[Mythsaje]

24. So?

We all have to interact with dogs to some extent or another. Kids would be a hell of a lot less likely to be bitten if they recognized warning behavior...

[seabeyond]

27. ah so whether we like animals or not

whether we are afraid of animals or not,.....surely you arent advocating we must interact with animals thru some class, lol lol ol.

as you will see in a post below, i have a neighbor, two pits. one female, nice, one male, not nice. has attacked another neighbors rotweiller. they get out. my boys have to go out to make sure gate is closed. if gate opens, they have to head to our door, a distance. just in case. but, if this pit comes up to them, boys unaware, the suggestion is they stand there like a tree. my ass.

my boys interact with lots of dogs. dont think they will be comfortable with that pit regardless. nor would i want them to be

btw neighbor told me he is friendly, just doesnt like n***** and other dogs. i have an uncle that is mexican. does that offend the dog.

not going to win me over on this argument. lived on a farm. didnt like the animals then, dont like them 40 years later. i am allowed.

[Mythsaje]

31. I'm not talking about "being comfortable..."

I'm talking about being safe. If you don't understand animal behavior, you're at a disadvantage when circumstances force you to interact with them.

I don't give a shit whether you like animals or not (though I think it's a character flaw, personally--that's okay, everyone has a few--my wife prefers animals to people, in general...also a character flaw)but you will have some interaction with animals, whether you want to or not, as your anecdote clearly illustrates.

I'm not recommending enforced interaction, but general education as to animal behavior to recognize certain behaviors as possibly threatening and learn ways to avoid aggressive action by these animals. You can't avoid dogs if you live in our society. If you don't know anything about them other than the fact that you don't like them, you're not only ignorant, but you're also at risk--as are your kids--because you're ignorant.

[seabeyond]

35. character flaw, wow

hm, i would never be so mean and hateful as this post to me. cause though i dont have a thing for animals (dirt, loose hair,dog shit, eeew), i love people. all people. even those people that say mean things to me, i still love them. and never would i say something ugly like that to another person. i might hurt there feelings. and that isnt nice. and i dont like to be, ..... not nice

wow

i am really laughing here. if you are refering to the basic of letting a dog smell your hand before petting, speaking with owner before approaching, ect..... well aware. i dont know how you make it thru life without the basic. not to mention, i dont like ignorance, i do a good job parenting and do the research on about all issues, so have already delved into pit bull behaviors, as i did with rotweillers when there were three living over there and would roam the neighborhood

or you could just make a bunch of assumptions

[Mythsaje]

37. It wasn't really meant an insult

just an observation. From my point of view it IS a character flaw. I'm married to a Libertarian, for God's sake. I consider some of her attitudes about people to be character flaws too.

It's not as though we don't all have them.

And I'm not just talking about knowing to let a dog sniff your hand or asking permission from the owner before touching them. I'm talking about being educated about their behaviors and the way THEIR society works, and the dynamics between their society and our own and how the interactions are often misunderstood.

Dogs that attack give warning signs that most people never learn how to read. Signs that might not be a growl or something obvious, but far more subtle body language that someone who is ignorant (also not an insult--just a basic fact) about animal (particularly dog) behavior would not be able to recognize.

[seabeyond]

76. one could say, your wife's rejection of mankind may be a character

flaw. one could say that; i wouldnt. i would say it is a reflection of the uniqueness of her individuality and thank you for her gift to animal. that is the coolest. it is a beautiful site to behold. she can give the love to animal. i can give the love to babies. what a happy world this would be

i dont like the ocean to swim in. i love it so in all others ways, but i dont like to swim in it. my in laws think that is a character flaw. i have many valid reasons not wanting to swim in it. it is all dismissed.......and i am told, but you gotta like it, you gotta

no i dont

[ConsAreLiars]

43. I think the point was only that dogs (like them or not) are not

like people or cartoon characters. Understanding them as they are is a good thing, just like understanding anything about the real world. Good as a pragmatic matter, and good in terms of "enlightenment" more broadly.

[Mythsaje]

45. Very nicely put

I might have been a little sharper in my reply than I intended, but this is one of my hot buttons--a lot of people who don't care to understand dogs because they don't like them have made a lot of trouble for dogs and dog owners without ever really bothering to educate themselves.

Dogs are as much individuals as humans are, and they act according to a completely different set of rules than we do. They may adopt SOME of our rules to get along, but their perception of those rules are very different.

They aren't "dumb animals" in the way that some people assume--they are thinking beings as well...they just don't think like we do.

[seabeyond]

73. a lot of people that dont care to understand children has

created a challenge for us parents too. but....i wouldnt be so arrogant to suggest all the population take child development courses. nor would i put the responsibility of my children and their behavior on a total stranger

[Coventina]

69. "Not liking animals" does not give you a pass

The bottom line is, we share this planet with a lot of other creatures and we ignore them at our own peril.

The dog was the first animal domesticated, over 14,000 years ago. As a human being you have an obligation to understand humankind's oldest companion. I think and understanding of all domesticated animals that we use for food, clothing and companionship should be standard curriculum for schools.

Wilfull ignorance DOES put you and your children in danger, as well as expressing an arrogance that is really breathtaking.

[seabeyond]

71. my arrogance

so the whole point of this post, do we legislate law on individual behavior. the first thing up, is to force people to take animal classes. and if you arent an animal lover, you have character flaw and are arrogant. further, abusing my children and putting htem at risk. someone having a dog that is aggressive has become my fault.

hm

out of the few people posting it seems i am being told, i am not allowed to not be uncomfortable with animals. i must, must embrace them

animals love me. they bypass all and come to me for love. i have found a lifetime, all animals, gerbils, dogs, cats, cows, friggin lizards.... all animals love my energy. it also messes them up. i do the same with babies, but it is comforting to the babies, kids. my energy calms them. with animals, pumps them with too much energy.

they are, animals after all. i expect them to behave like animal, not human. if their energy is messed up or they are confused it is going to affect their behavior, and they will react as animal

i respect this. i expect no more from them

ergo i am wary

and i am arrogant.

hm

in order to protect the agenda of love of animal the essence of the posts are being ignored. but to dismiss all i say and call me arrogant, and not taking care of my children is truly a lazy argument

[Coventina]

75. Were you "forced" to learn reading & math?

And if you do see it that way, do you really see it as having been abusive?

I don't see where gaining knowledge about the animals we share our lives with can be considered "abuse" any more than any other subject taught by our mandatory educational system is.

As for the rest of your post, it is way too rambling and unfocused for me to really grasp what you are trying to say.

[seabeyond]

77. you are exactly showing the nanny state i talk

then people say bad bad and no liberals dont.

force prenatal
force dog training class (i will be more comfortable with your animal)
force meditation, that will be a societal healing. i champion this one. for the betterment of society
force parenting
force
force
force

prison system of the airports, strip us and have us do a duck hop, because of all the people afraid

no, you dont understand. not even. but.....you can call me names, still. you can decide i am an unfit mother. as you say you dont understand. and you wont understand. because you refuse to understand

my brother last 6 months have gotten two baby pits, to breed. right at his door. as i walk up. as they get older, without training class, i will have to decide whether they are a threat, to my boys, to his nephews. it is going to take my time, to understand the interaction of animal to man....on if they are a threat. with out animal training class.

i think, i am being pretty accomodating to the animal lovers here. and that you really arent appreciating all the effort and time i am putting in, because you want to own pits.

but you arent going to understand that either.

[Coventina]

81. So our K-12 system is part of the nanny state now?

Where did I call you any names?

Where did I say I wanted to own Pit Bulls?

[seabeyond]

84. "So our K-12 system is part of the nanny state now?"

and i said this?

on edit: but yes, there are eliments of it in our public school system, many ways. ence one of the issues i regularly deal with in my interaction with the school as my two little boys go thru the system

and i do that in respect with teacher and school in the understanding ultimately we all want the best for child, society.....the whole.

i have learned i am pretty good at addressing this in a manner that is not disrespectful ot the person i am interacting ergo it is very productive for me, administrator, child and society as a hope

see, i am confident in my ability. i see people are good and i can talk with them. i know i dont need a rule to make things better. and i know i am part of the healing.

this stuff isnt hard for me. i am saying, you dont have to take care of my child, you can trust i do a good job. people can clearly see that. why people on this board have a tough time, i sugest is to win an argument. gotta have a winner and a loser

i see it as having winner winner and winner. i dont have to have a loser

[seabeyond]

79. ex: i got up to get coffee. looked out window. neighbor gate is open

pits could be out. k

so kids, no going out

i did my job. paid attention, saw the threat and keeping boys in house

and yawl want more?

or would you like me to go out, so i can embrace pit and understand pit, reason with pit and show my dominence. people want me to be ok with the pit, bear in the forest, sharks in the ocean. if i wasnt being asked to be one with these animals, but with less threatening animals, maybe i would have an easier time with animals.

[Coventina]

82. No one is asking you to be ok with dangerous dogs

Dangerous dogs need to be put down.
I don't care if they are pit bulls or toy poodles.

But you DO need to be "ok" with dogs in general. Because they are NOT going away and you will interact with them, at least on a limited basis, for the rest of your life.

And yes, you DO need to be okay with bears in the woods and sharks in the ocean, because that is where they live.

[seabeyond]

87. then how about if i stay out of the ocean

is that ok. i think i am the one being respectful of the shark. thye get all of the ocean. i give it to them. why, am i told i HAVE to go in.

your funny

i am being told to go into ocean not be afraid of shark, and not blame it when it eats me. it is an animal

i say, it is an animal and may eat me. i respect that. i will stay out of ocean.


just different people. my huby scuba. cool

[seabeyond]

88. more coffee. gate closed. kids can go out. n/t

[seabeyond]

21. why they think they can run my life better than I can?

tellin ya. it is why people run from the democrats. we see all the horror from bush and say why would anyone vote for them. as stupid as it is, ..... they think the dems want to dictate how they are suppose to live. some of the threads validate that belief. a couple of the recent local law, (doubt? they passed) feed right into it and scare the shit out of people

but ultimately it is why the hell do you think you can run my life better than i

but i must also add, in all the threads i have read in, the majority do not support this authoritarian behavior. didnt see the dog thread. no interest what so ever

but then, i have sat in amazement the lack of concern with my two boys living next to two pits, one having attacked a rot and all the people that told me time and again, not the dogs fault. do i give a fuck. not if they are going to be chewing on my kid. blame the owners all you want. they are still there, threatening my children being there.

but then people flip out because i dont use sunscreen, even though i say ten years, neither boy has had a burn

odd, simply odd

[Swamp Rat]

16. Other

"'Liberals' who favor more laws regulating each individual's life" and "mandatory classes" are really alien lizards. :scared:

[Mythsaje]

19. I'm with you...

[Ladyhawk]

20. This thread could also apply to the recent video game flame wars.

People who want to ban video games, or movies or whatever they deem "harmful" want the government to play "nanny." I voted that they are sincere in their beliefs, but hell, so are the fundies. As a fundy, I got really sick of dogma. Now I just want to be left alone. Trust me: left-wing dogma isn't any more appealing than the crap from the right. :(

[ConsAreLiars]

23. Quite right.

There are lots of threads where this sort of mindset reveals itself. In my view, the "nanny state" and "Big Brother" are kissing cousins if the "nanny" uses a stick instead of a carrot. Build support systems instead of punitive laws. Give people more options, rather than fewer. That, in my view, is the only way forward, and the only way to build a popular movement with a mass base.

[seabeyond]

28. yes yes yes. when did we walk away from helping someone

and instead resort to jail and taking kids away. you are so right on. so right on

[Mythsaje]

25. Absolutely!

And us Progressives who think this way need to be more vocal about it...in my opinion.

[seabeyond]

29. get your ass kicked if you do. let me tell you

lol lol lol

[Mythsaje]

40. I assume you're speaking figuratively?

LOL. I am anti-authoritarian and a non-conformist by nature. And I'm a wicked debater...I cut my teeth in aol chatrooms, then the about.com Civil Liberty boards...I'm certainly not afraid of a little controversy.

[Guaranteed]

32. I seriously understand. Don't

give up on us, though. It's not THAT bad. There are a LOT of us who understand what freedom is about. A WHOLE lot of us.

Just keep plugging away. Things will change.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. In my experience, most people here seem to lean socially libertarian...

But there are certainly some would-be censors, who can come up with exquisitely detailed rationales for why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to, say, watch a movie of other consenting adults having sex.

...and there are a few others who seem to think that anyone who would defend the First Amendment in the abovementioned situation is some kind of beer-addled neanderthal sitting in front of a computer in a cave, wearing a stained undershirt and griping about how "Ooog No like! Don't take Ooog's videogames or dirrrty pictures away!".

But that's the minority, IMHO.

[Guaranteed]

57. Yeah...so what if my shirt is stained?

:P

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I can't hear you. I'm too busy, um, polishing my club...

[Guaranteed]

26. Holy shit.

:woohoo:

I was looking for a "bow-down" smilie. You said it. The above smilie is my second-highest compliment.

Unbelievably well-done.

[Guaranteed]

30. I voted...

"sincere in their belief that increased state power serves the greater good," BTW.

I realize that they believe that. Unfortunately, they're wrong.

They need to hold TRUE to liberalism and what it REALLY means. We're not rebelling against society entirely for the benefit of society, nor do we restrict the rights of the individual simply for the benefit of the individual.

The individual comprises society- socially. They deserve everything that a human deserves- economically (that includes healthcare). Ideas should be free-flowing (that means that the media has to be kept un-conglomerated), and actions should be completely uncomplicated EXCEPT where they infringe on others' rights-- DIRECTLY- NOT IMAGINED.

THAT is liberalism, folks.

[ConsAreLiars]

36. I probably should have deleted the "jobs" option and added "all of the abo

and split "sincere" into "sincere and correct" and "sincere but mistaken." Hindsight. But the main purpose, as you recognized in your previous comment, was to ask about what kind of society are we trying to build and how we make it happen.

[Mythsaje]

41. We have very similar views here...n/t

[LoZoccolo]

38. Why are we having a poll about what I think?

It's not up to everyone else; they don't know. You can ask me if you want to know.

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Good poll, Cons...

Maybe I'm just a libertarian Alaskan who wouldn't fit in anywhere else, but KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE, period. As long as I'm not hurting anybody (and I'm not), I don't need anybody else telling me what's best for me. I really hate this nanny society. People who make all these rules are well-meaning, I'm sure, but please just stop it.

[Mythsaje]

44. You sound

like a friend of mine who lives up that way. He's far more radical than I am, but we actually agree on a lot of principles. I don't particularly want anyone trying to save my soul, OR my body, etc...

[Blue_In_AK]

46. Yeah, a lot of us seem to be that way up here...

Republicans and Democrats alike (and Libertarians and Greens). One thing we all agree on is "We don't care how they do it Outside." :evilgrin: This IS the Last Frontier after all.

[ConsAreLiars]

48. And also most people everywhere on this planet.

That is one reason for starting this discussion. Most of us just want to live our lives as simply as possible, and the fascist right has used the abstraction of "regulations" as a talking point against policies intended to enhance freedom and restrain the powerful, despite the fact that virtually all laws and regulations are created by corporate lobbys and intended to further extend the power of monopoly capital. Those who promote restrictions on personal (human persons, that is) liberties play into their hands as well as moving us away from a future in which corporations no longer govern the rest of us.

[Blue_In_AK]

49. Well said, Cons...

Not only are you a great photographer, but a great intellect, as well. I think I love you. :loveya:

[ConsAreLiars]

51. Right back at you

:blush: and :loveya:

On both counts.

[mixedview]

54. none of the above - they are maternalists/nanny staters

The term nanny state, used especially in the United Kingdom, is a derogatory term for government intervention, especially in social issues. Nannydom refers to the general way of thinking that can emerge in power hierarchies (even those smaller than states) while practitioners of such behaviour may by called nannycrats.

Policies such as bans on smoking in public places, high taxes on junk food, bans on recreational drug use, and anti-pornography laws are seen by their opponents as an example of a functioning nanny state. Such actions are said to operate on the assumption that the state (or, more often, one of its local authorities) has a duty to protect the citizenry from their own harmful behaviour, and that it knows best what constitutes harmful behaviour.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

Maternalists/nanny staters are the authoritarian wing of the Western Left, just as paternalists (the religous right) are the authoritarian wing of the Western Right.

This is not to say maternalists are entirely wrong, however. I'm much more of a libertarian but they do have many good ideas and do address many social issues which have been previously unaddressed - like school bullying for example. They are a very neccesary voice - "the voice of the mother" - but like all authoritarians they can - and often do - go too far.

[Guaranteed]

55. School bullying. Don't get me started.

LOL I'm actually ashamed of my views on that.

I'm for violence, basically. And I know I'm probably wrong.

I think some humility needs to be taught. I'm in favor of those bigger, stronger, and more virtuous (until then) stepping in...

[Warren DeMontague]

60. No one should be allowed to bully. The bully mentality is pervasive in our

culture, and we see where it gets us. Ego and rage mania on the highways. Kids who think it's worth shooting someone who criticizes their footwear. A "Youth pastor" who beats the crap out of a four year old to wrestle a foul ball away at a baseball game. The President who pumps his fist in the air and goes "feels good" as bombs start falling on people is considered a "Good Christian".

This is also tied into the "win at all costs" mentality much of the culture has ingrained, and I trace it back to the "greed is good" 80s, among other places. (No, no! The culture's "values" problem is because of that 60's mentality, remember?)

There's a difference between telling people what's good for them, and regulating how people interact with each other. Once you make your problem someone else's problem, it's no longer just your business.

[mixedview]

61. I agree

I do believe an individual should do as much as they can to provide for and protect themselves - they shouldn't automatically rely upon the state.

But, in order for libertarian democracy to work, the state must step in to curb bullies, to protect liberty. Otherwise, the bullies will quickly assume power and abuse most of the population - dog eat dog.

Many people simply can't fight for themselves. This doesn't mean they are unworthy of liberty.

Systems which reward extreme bullying - such as our school system and our prison system (there's no wonder that many go directly from one to the other) - are destructive and fail to preserve basic human rights.

[wtmusic]

78. How does our school system "reward extreme bullying"?

You lost me there.

[eridani]

63. A lot of whining about maternalism--

--usually means that someone is angry about being told not to piss in the reservoir.

[Scout]

64. yup

are these the people who, as children, we likely to use "you're not the boss of me" as an objection?

:evilgrin:

[Mythsaje]

67. Kow-towing to authority

is a sign of a weak mind and weak will. Authority isn't always right, and often it is wrong.

I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much. That's what being an adult is all about.

[seabeyond]

90. not everybody is you though. i have a son that likes rules

my whole family, rebels in everything. i married a family that embraces, loves and appreciates and values rules. they like the guide in life. i like to wing it. i have to respect my sons like of rules. i do tell him though, if i respect this aspect of you, you must respect my rejection of another telling me how to do something, i am quite capable of figuring it out myself

i am nice to all people. that is productive and good for me. also messhes with society. i came to it on my own. i didnt need a rule book to figure out nice

[GreenArrow]

68. in general, the more laws, the more criminals

Education, rational persuasion, and appeals to voluntary compliance might work better than legislating any and every concievable behaviour.

I find these sorts of proposed regulations for ordinary individuals noxious and toxic, the products of authoritorian mindsets.

"That government is best which governs least." Does anyone on the left even believe that any more?

[Cats Against Frist]

70. Yeah, I wanted to chime in on all this, too

As a small-l libertarian, it's a good time to make a point: ALL government is authoritarianism and ALL laws are arbitrary -- and the left has just as many stupid pet causes, as the right. You can't honestly say "a woman has a right to her own body," and "you have the duty to pay into a social welfare system, or a war chest," with a straight fucking face.

When you make those statements, you are claiming authority. I don't know where the authority comes from that says women have a right to their bodies, but people don't have a right to their property.

I'm not even saying I disagree with taxation, particularly on the state level -- but I think that this is important to point out. I've heard a lot of "fascist" blah, blah, blah, and absolutism, on many topics of sexual politics -- but the same people support a left-wing authoritarianism, that, in scope and limitation of freedom, really isn't that different from Republicanism.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. Rights Require Authority?

I think your liberterian sensibilities are clouding your understanding.

Rights are inherent. Rights are not bestowed. In fact, the purpose of our Constitution includes telling gov't WHAT IT CAN'T DO regarding the rights of the citizens.

However, logic would dictate that since property is a fungible commodity, which a woman's body is not, there is no reasonable way for your example to make sense. If a woman can buy a "cloned" body, then there would be some reasonable limitations society could impose on her use of said purchase/personal property. Since a woman's own body is not PROPERTY, your argument is specious.

Property rights and UNALIENABLE human rights are so different as to make any comparison ridiculous.

I believe you should have thought your post out a little more carefully.
The Professor

[Cats Against Frist]

86. Ah, but your modern sensibilities cloud your understanding

Everything you typed, above, invoked authority, and made assumptions, which, as far as I'm concerned, are arbitrary constructs. Of course the assertion that people have INALIENABLE rights requires authority -- (and I'm speaking not of "authorities," but authority).

Let's say you an I agree with Enlightenment thinking that a non-interventionist creator "gave" humans inalienable rights -- because we probably do -- even though, as a postmodernist, I don't consider this idea to be any more ABSOLUTE than, say, a fundie's assertion that society should be ruled by the toaster waffle fairy, or whatever.

Even if we agree to that, the founders were mostly classical liberals, meaning, at the very least, that they thought that the fruit of one's labor (i.e. earned capital), should remain the property of the earnee. The LOGICAL answer is that people should be able to control that which their labor produces, as much as a person should control their own body. Of course -- this, too, really is arbitrary, but it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than two sets of authoritarians (Republicans and Democrats) arguing about who is more authoritarian.

To arrive at either conclusion, one must come up with an arbitrary value set, that has no "absolute" authority, (though people will claim it does), and has nothing to do with the concept of inalienable rights, whatsoever.

To assert that a body should pitch in the fruits of its labor to further a war, or create the perfect modernist society, is no different than delineating fetus from human and proclaiming the "human's" rights dominant. When one picks one, but not the other -- they're creating an arbitrary value set. And the more you try to explain it, i.e. "fungible," the more arbitrary it is revealed to be.

That's my only argument -- you and I probably agree on the outcome, just not the means.

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Probably So

I don't however, require any extrinsic intervention. Therefore the sense of authority is not required. Only being sentient is required. Since sentience is not endowed, neither are the rights that are intrinsic to said sentience.

Hence, while all governmental constructs confer authority to someone at set times, (the voters vote, the reps legislate and excecute, etc.), the rights are extant no matter the societal structure.

So, we're not terribly different, but the basic philosophicial premise upon which the opinions are based are differently rooted.
The Professor

[LWolf]

72. Here's an "other:"

Rage and frustration with people who use their freedoms to damage/destroy/abuse other living things. In other words, people who abuse their freedoms.

It can be difficult to remember the bigger picture at times. If you work, as I do, in the public sector with other people's children, after awhile it's easy to wish that every last human being, when they reached puberty, could be sterilized, and apply for licenses to reproduce when they've finished an education, developed a healthy life-style, and actually prove that they are capable of providing stability, nurturing, and care to children. That doesn't mean that I think that should really happen, but when dealing with the long-term effects of unregulated reproduction, that's the emotional reaction.

Wanting stricter regulations can be empathy working on behalf of victims.

I'd prefer to provide a thinking-rich, complete public education, and to work on culturally/socially accepted dysfunctions that are abusive, myself. That would require a great deal of upfront time, energy, money, and some ideological shifts, though. More regulation allows politicians and their supporters to puff out their chests, pat themselves on the back, and sit back to enjoy all the "punishment."

I still think the mother of my grandson should be permanently sterilized, and never allowed in reach or voice range of another child for the rest of her life, though.

[seabeyond]

83. who is going to decide. what is the criteria for healthy life style

stability, nurturing and care

all that is subjective, developmental, experience oriented. my husband's family does not fight. at any point they never go to battle. they arent allowed. but they do it in a hurtful behind the back, nonloving, very judgemental way. 5 siblings and none of them interact or talk to each other

my family, we get pissed we call it. we are a part of each others life in love and connection. with our nieces and nephews. we are a part. and we are passionate.

our yelling is abusive by many standards

my children get to look at that family and that family and see the exact opposites

excellent lesson for them in seeing the best of both and applying them to life in a healthy and balanced manner

my mother in-law is envious of my families connection in love and wants a two family reunion. there is not a chance in hell i would subject my family to that judgement. all lawyers, doctors. the intellicual elite. (we love this part of our in-laws also. we are that good. we embrace academic. knowledge and wisdom)

my family is seen as just white trailor trash (not really though brother lives in a trailor.)

because of the judgement, my mother in-law will never get what she wants and craves, that connection

who is going to decide the right lifestyle. because my educated in-laws think they have it pegged

i beg to differ

[LWolf]

85. Differ with what???

Didn't the question I was answering ask what was going on with liberals who advocate stricter regulations? Do you differ with what I proposed, that some liberals advocate more controls because they empathize with victims? Or something else?

I gave one factor, and it is a real factor. Whether or not liberals SHOULD advocate more laws is a different question, isn't it?

Are you inferring that I support greater controls because I candidly talked about emotional reactions, and that my emotions rule my positions where legislations are concerned? Or something else?

[seabeyond]

89. emotional reactions,

i found your post interesting and stimulating that leads to emotional reaction. this brings it more to a bottom line for me. yes it does have to do with emotional reaction. my children have so much. and i can see lack in so many children if i chose. if i dont create lack for them, ...... then i can see much more and have a better understanding of what i can give, that will be helpful

what drew me to your post is your desire to participate in this area of society. i have the same desire. i have been doing it in many different ways for a decade

but having seen so many different situations, the drunk parents, the violent divorce, society creating children as victim and lacking, that lack of money, being poor and able to pay bills and feed family. i cannot so readily condemn others experience in life. i watch a single father raising a 10 and 12 year old. not at all like i. i have seen these children without father and with father. i love them. and i know they are better with father. yet there are so many things the father does i dont like and dont have in my life. i know i have it too easy. i understand this. i could demand others do what i am doing. they cant. plus they are living their own unique life, that is creating a diversity. i am not fearful of diversity. i see the good.

i dont know

[sweetheart]

80. It does indeed make me wonder what our grand coalition stands for

I don't vote for people who want to chain individual liberty.

I find those threads divisive and putting forth an old thinking that
got dems in trouble in the 70's with the political sinker "busing".
I had hoped that dems had learned from "busing" not to legislate people's
lives, and to achieve their ends using softer means.

I haven't voted in the poll yet. I think people are raving mad and
want somebody to hold their hand and be their nanny so they don't have
to be responsible for the consequences of their madness.

[TWiley]

92. A true "Liberal" would oppose any legislation of personal morality

It is the republican belief that the best way to govern the populace is through the legislation of a moral code for the peasants.

Liberals tend to want to legislate the morality of the capitalists.

[Moderator]

94. Locking....

This is a continuation of an argument
in several threads which were locked.
It has also turned inflammatory.