Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism

Post Reply New Topic

In most cases one can hold onto the steering wheel. The seat belt laws were passed mostly to prevent self injury rather than injury to parties outside one's auto. Ditto for helmet laws for motorcycle drivers and bicyclists.

ruveyn

And you just proved my point. Think about it.

Not so in a car, but surely in a plane where motion in three dimensions is not only likely but certain. I have driven for 50 years and I have yet to been thrown about so much as not being able to steer or put my feet on the pedals.

ruveyn

confused.

i thought "nanny state" was a term meant to discredit those who support welfare and other government assistance ? (like "bleeding heart liberal" instead of liberal or progressive)

have I misunderstood?

One of the main problems it there is no "liberal" Fox "News". A lot of sensationalists (even some mainstream editorialists) like to pretend MSNBC is the leftwing version of Fox "News", but it's nowhere nearly rigid enough or top-down organized enough to be so (it still has a large daily straight news block, a conservative gets a three hour show in the morning, and the opinion-driven commentators like Ed and Olbermann don't work from a synchronized, top-down memo).

The use is very ambigious depending on the context - some people like to deviously confuse the two meanings to oppose social welfare policies. But generally, it's broken between two distinct definitions:

1) Those who support mandatory public safety measures - like seatbelts or bike helmets.
2) Those who support assisting the poor and disadvantaged through social welfare measures.

Dean Baker, ingeniously, flipped meaning #2 when he wrote "The Conservative Nanny State" about ways the rich use government to make themselves richer.

I do know that there are some socialists (real socialists, not New Deal Liberals or even leftwing social democrats) who consider themselves "independents".

The big thing that Fox News is good at is directing the conversation and getting everyone to look at what they want given attention. They start the news stories that others feed on later. In order for a liberal force to do the same, they would need to go on the offensive and start the news stories and control the tone of the conversation.

One of the issues that confronts opponents to the so-called "Nanny State," is the public sector costs that arrive as a result of a lack of regulation in a variety of areas.

Consider seat belts. The driver may say, "It's my body and my car, I should be free to take these risks." Fair enough. But, if that driver is injured, it is still the public sector that is going to bear the greatest costs for not only medical care, but also the loss of economic productivity that results from serious injury, or, indeed, the costs of support arising from disability from employment.

Similarly with smoking. The link between "second-hand smoke" and chronic respiratory and cardiac disease is well established--and those are risks that do not fall on the smoker. While second hand smoke is more diffuse that directly inhaled smoke, it is also more toxic. The WHO estimates that 10 percent of tobacco related economic costs (related to direct health care and loss of productivity) are due to second hand smoke.

Now, I am all for individual liberty. But when an individual's liberty contributes to an increased financial burden on the public sector, that's when I think that it is appropriate for government to step in and regulate.

And though I am a card-carrying, capital-L liberal, I have absolutely no tolerance for NIMBYism!

One, the science is far from firm here, and I'm not talking climate change skepticism type misinformation either. Two, most smoking bans target private property, to wit businesses such as bars and restaurants. It would be one thing if we were talking truly public places, but no one has any right to regulate conduct on private property in that way.





I didn't say Democrat or Republican, I said "liberal", and the reasons for my opinions on the matter go back a lot further than Obama or Reagan. Think FDR and LBJ far back. Republicans have been real hypocrites lately with the Homeland Security BS; but historically? I'll stand by my statements.



The kind of stuff in my other thread, foi gras bans, lawn darts, bans on raw milk, AKA minding my business for me, or trying to protect me from myself. I'd lump in anti-tobacco fervor, old school alcohol prohibition, the drug war and gun control, but those things are issues unto themselves now.

That is the nub of it. Governments exist to prevent A from doing wrong to B or punishing such wrong doing. When government starts to protect A from his own stupidity, we are in for a world of hurt.

ruveyn

Perhaps. FDR is ancient history by now. Eisenhower (a Republican) built the interstate highway system. LBJ had his "great society." All Republican political leaders at least from 1980 on (and perhaps earlier) have been tools for what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, and have served to grow government through the military. There is far more wasteful spending in elaborate weapons systems than there is in any social program.


I think the FDA has a legitimate role to play in some of those issues. They are the only reason we can trust the safety of anything we purchase and consume. Perhaps outright bans on certain things are inappropriate, but at the very least things must be clearly and honestly labeled. I would love to see (for instance) homeopathic water with a disclaimer to the effect of "There is no credible evidence that this product has any potential health benefit whatsoever."

In an earlier debate, Dox47 stated how he viewed the military as on of the "few areas of legitimate government activity". I find it very ironic Rightists worry about marginal gun control and social services data undermining their liberties when the national security state has the potential to infringe on peoples' privacy rights.

And I'll stand by that, I make no secret of my minarchist political views and my desire for a night watchman state, maintaining national security is one of the most and only important roles for such a state.



As opposed to Leftists being so terrified of allowing people to be responsible for themselves while being cavalier about the danger of the central government they advocate for?

For the second time in this thread I feel compelled to ask who another poster is talking to, me being not right wing and all. Did I not mention, in this very thread, my displeasure with the Bush era homeland security buildup and both the expansion of government and slew of new restrictions that came with it? I'm OK with military expenditures, NOT domestic surveillance, regardless of the purpose.

I don't know why I didn't mention it sooner, but if "unabashed liberalism" is going to fly, it really needs to work on it's image concerning smugness and contempt for the "flyover states". Even if someone doesn't care for those people either, it's a major turnoff.

But... unabashed conservatism makes a point of their open disdain for the educated classes. What kind of political culture do we have when it is perfectly fine to brandish one's ignorance and undisguised hatred for knowledge, and yet it is a "major turnoff" to look down on uneducated hicks?