Only in America...you must vote or else you get fined.

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Still doesn't fit the political definition of paternalism.

 

[Reba]

Then why is it they exhibit such paternalistic behaviors and attitudes?

Such as?

 

[deafskeptic]

Nanny states force people to obey laws and regulations that are "for their own good" just like a parent does.

Welfare states are like the parent who provides the necessities of life to their children who are incapable of providing for themselves. The difference is, children grow up and learn to take care of themselves but people dependent on welfare don't move on. (I'm talking about permanent, multi-generational welfare recipients, not temporary safety net situations.)


That is another example. Increasing taxes on one car over another isn't force but it certainly is influence. Threatening with prison would surely seem to be force.

The problem is, paternalism believes that what it either influences (taxes) or forces (threatens with prison) is for the good of society.

I find what a great many social conservatives would decree in politics to be quite paternalistic. Paternalism knows no party, imho.

 

[Reba]

Wirelessly posted

Still doesn't fit the political definition of paternalism.

From Dictionary.com :

"the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children."

"A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities."

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Not in theory, it's a global philosphy. Problem is conservates in individual countries have different values.

Got it.

I assumed since this thread was "Only in America" that we were discussing American conservatives.

We are talking about Americans. However, not everything can be painted on a line.

You can be a liassez-faire liberal or a conservative dictator, a totalitarian liberal or a minimalist conservative.

People of the same ideology agree on the same points, but not everyone in the same group agree how those points are mandated.

It's fine to point out hypocrisy, but to redefine something...

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Still doesn't fit the political definition of paternalism.

From Dictionary.com :

"the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children."

"A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities."

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Are you saying there no conservatives on welfare! I had plenty of clients that where conservatives on welfare and getting food stamps!

I didn't say that.

Conservative philosophy doesn't want to promote dependence on the government.

Do all conservatives adhere to that value? We could assume that; but there's so many points that conservatives and liberals don't agree on, there's no way that everyone within the same ideology would be a hundred percent onboard about the same issues.


I means many people here on AD would be quick to call me a liberal, perhaps a socialist, even Canadians, but my voting history and the platforms my votes supported would say otherwise.

So, absence of government dependency is one of the values, certainly, but it's not the only value necessary for someone to call themselves a conservative.

 

[Reba]

Wirelessly posted

Do all conservatives adhere to that value? We could assume that; but there's so many points that conservatives and liberals don't agree on, there's no way that everyone within the same ideology would be a hundred percent onboard about the same issues.

It's true that the umbrellas of "conservative" and "liberal" are broad and on a spectrum. Even when those within a group share ideals, their methods for attaining those ideals can vary all over the map. It's not cut and dry.

I means many people here on AD would be quick to call me a liberal, perhaps a socialist, even Canadians, but my voting history and the platforms my votes supported would say otherwise.

So, absence of government dependency is one of the values, certainly, but it's not the only value necessary for someone to call themselves a conservative.

True.

Would you agree with the following blanket statement?

"Conservatives (the vast majority, that is) are all about force. 'Force everyone to believe as we believe on all issues political and moral' is the foundation of their label."

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Do all conservatives adhere to that value? We could assume that; but there's so many points that conservatives and liberals don't agree on, there's no way that everyone within the same ideology would be a hundred percent onboard about the same issues.

It's true that the umbrellas of "conservative" and "liberal" are broad and on a spectrum. Even when those within a group share ideals, their methods for attaining those ideals can vary all over the map. It's not cut and dry.

I means many people here on AD would be quick to call me a liberal, perhaps a socialist, even Canadians, but my voting history and the platforms my votes supported would say otherwise.

So, absence of government dependency is one of the values, certainly, but it's not the only value necessary for someone to call themselves a conservative.

True.

Would you agree with the following blanket statement?

"Conservatives (the vast majority, that is) are all about force. 'Force everyone to believe as we believe on all issues political and moral' is the foundation of their label."

Nope. Conservatism isn't about force. A few peope may advocate for such impositions, but you will find that anywhere; but it's not sufficent enough reasoning to deduce as such.

That's why I pipped up about the definition. Broad over-generalization.

 

[Reba]

Wirelessly posted

Nope. Conservatism isn't about force. A few peope may advocate for such impositions, but you will find that anywhere; but it's not sufficent enough reasoning to deduce as such.

That's why I pipped up about the definition. Broad over-generalization.

Fair enough.

 

[kokonut]

Now, that wasn't so hard.

 

[BradB08]

Proposal to make voting mandatory riles Ridgway - The Denver Post

Liberalism at its best when democracy is ignored.

Are you really that much of a dumbass?

We live in a Democracy. There's always third party if you must.

Why don't you vote independent or third party? At least you're still voting and you can't complain later one.

 

[kokonut]

Are you really that much of a dumbass?

We live in a Democracy. There's always third party if you must.

Why don't you vote independent or third party? At least you're still voting and you can't complain later one.

No. We live in a republic govt, not a democracy.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." It's in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

And then we have the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

And nothing about "and to the Democracy for which it stands."

 

[BradB08]

Blah blah blah.

You pledge allegiance to a murderous regime.

GOOD FOR YOU

Now you can join Fritz and Bertel in line for their pitiful war rations.

 

[kokonut]

Good. You understand then?

 

[jillio]

Such as?

We can start with efforts to remove choice in medical procedures from women and believing they are somehow appointed as saviors of the unborn. The whole foundation of paternalism is the unrealistic believe that those who engage in paternalistic behavior is that they are morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to those that they are claiming to protect. And the reason also, why those with the most paternalistic attitudes rarely recognize the great fault in their belief to the degree that they do not even recognize the nature of their attitudes and behaviors.

 

[jillio]

No. We live in a republic govt, not a democracy.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." It's in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

And then we have the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

And nothing about "and to the Democracy for which it stands."

Check yourself. The true defininition of our political system is a democratic republic. I would think a self proclaimed pundit would already be aware of that.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



Not in theory, it's a global philosphy. Problem is conservates in individual countries have different values.

Conservatives in Netherlands are not the same as those in America. They operate along the same line pf preserving old values of the previous generation, but... the conservatives in Europe would be considered as "socialists" by many Americans, while the liberals of North America would be considered as "conservatives" to them. Yet the one thing conservatives share on both sides of the pond is the idea of holding true to the old societial values.

Exactly. Which is why it is different in theory and in practice.

 

[jillio]

I have a question. Was the title an intentional lie?

 

[Reba]

We can start with efforts to remove choice in medical procedures from women and believing they are somehow appointed as saviors of the unborn.

So what have the liberals been appointed? Saviors of women?

The whole foundation of paternalism is the unrealistic believe that those who engage in paternalistic behavior is that they are morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to those that they are claiming to protect.

Which could also be said for those on the liberal end of the political spectrum who think they are ethically, morally, and intellectually superior to others. This is evident in all the posts where liberals very specifically put down the ethics, morals, and intellect of conservative posters rather than focusing on the content of the debates.

And the reason also, why those with the most paternalistic attitudes rarely recognize the great fault in their belief to the degree that they do not even recognize the nature of their attitudes and behaviors.

That's clear to see.



You see, it works both ways. Neither political party is immune to paternalism.