What's new
By:

Conservative and Liberal. Nature or Nurture?

Scat said:
"Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem" ~ Reagan
Click to expand...


"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves," This quote is attributed to Jefferson, but in fact he never said any such thing.
 
It occurs to me that I may expect government to actually love it's citizens. Which makes me a fool. Government is an abstraction. Might as well expect the rocks lining my driveway to be nurturing. If I'm expecting government to somehow act to uphold the Golden Rule, then I'm crazy. In fact, I'm probably not a typical liberal at all. I'm living in a fantasy world that has no, and never will have, any basis in reality. This father figure I'm looking for does not exist in the real world. I'm beginning to wonder if it's a theocracy I want, lol, and I have not practiced any faith at all in nearly 60 years.
 
Scat said:
"Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem" ~ Reagan
Click to expand...
Wasn't reagan like part of the government or something?
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya. Kinda hypocritical too maybe.
Click to expand...

Haha, as if he didn't know he was part of government?
I get the humor, and I should just laugh along, but I do appreciate when someone can humbly admit they are part of the problem and bring it to light in an attempt to do better.
 
Dr. Jones said:
Haha, as if he didn't know he was part of government?
I get the humor, and I should just laugh along, but I do appreciate when someone can humbly admit they are part of the problem and bring it to light in an attempt to do better.
Click to expand...
He admits he is part of the problem and then declares war (an un-winnable one at that) on a huge population of his own people? (War on drugs was reagans big thing iirc)

Seems kind of dumb to me.
 
fishonjazz said:
He admits he is part of the problem and then declares war (an un-winnable one at that) on a huge population of his own people? (War on drugs was reagans big thing iirc)

Seems kind of dumb to me.
Click to expand...
A war on drugs may be an unwinnable one, but it's hard to suggest it isn't a noble one.

If one's most damning bit of rep is that of a failed yet noble attempt, I consider that person a champ.
 
Dr. Jones said:
A war on drugs may be an unwinnable one, but it's hard to suggest it isn't a noble one.

If one's most damning bit of rep is that of a failed yet noble attempt, I consider that person a champ.
Click to expand...
Good point
 
Reagan was a pretty good president.
 
Red said:
I don't know if I'm a typical liberal, because I really never thought much about "what I am". But I would say that I am nurturing, and I guess I'm looking for a reflection of myself in the greater world. There has to be some entity that helps people in need. Who takes in refugees? Government just seems to have the most resources to help. Maybe I want government to overcome the law of the jungle. I'm not sure; I'll have to think about this. Maybe I've been wrong my entire life, I don't know....
Click to expand...
At first I thought, this is not necessarily a right vs. wrong issue, but then I realized that US Constitution was specifically written to define the duties and obligations of our government. I just read it as a result of your post. (Not nearly as big an undertaking as if I had decided I needed to read the Obamacare legislation.) The answer to whether or not it is our government's job to parent the citizens should be found within it.

The only references I found in the entire document were the bolded section in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
Click to expand...
And the bolded portion in Section 8:
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
So the question becomes, is a parenting, nurturing government what is meant by "promote the general welfare?" I don't think it is, but maybe I'm wrong. My reading of the Constitution left me with the strong feeling that our form of government is meant to be as a facilitator of rights, not an administrator of social justice.

Dr. Jones made some recent posts about how people in trouble used to be cared for more by their neighbors, churches, etc. I think that's true. He said that era might be permanently behind us, and I think that might be partially true as well. There are still individual neighbors, charitable organizations and churches that do a good job of this sort of stuff, but some people clearly fall through the cracks. This is especially a problem in impoverished neighborhoods where large percentages of the population are in trouble. I doubt the founding fathers could ever have envisioned such a situation. There is no question in my mind that the general welfare is at stake in these situations and therefore our government has a constitutional obligation to help.

I believe that in the long term the only viable solution is for the government to facilitate economic opportunity. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument. I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer to fish for themselves. If not we ultimately have an unsolvable problem.

I was surprised recently when a few members of this forum said that the constitution was held too sacrosanct, and ought to just be thrown out. To me that makes no sense. I believe in the importance of the constitution not because I see it as some sort of sacred document, but because I can't see how our government has any validity without a defining document. Every successful business that I know of has something similar, even if it is nothing more than a Mission Statement. It makes no sense to run any organization without defining its purpose, and that's exactly what the Constitution does.

If people want to throw out the current constitution that can be done, but only by agreeing to a new constitution. If someone wants to modify the constitution that can be done as well. There are currently 27 amendments and more can be added by following the process established within the document itself.

I encouraged the creation of this thread because I really do want to understand the differences in thinking between left and right. I agree with Dr. Jones and others that we are not really far apart at all, but it feels that way because we are defining ourselves by our differences rather than our similarities. Not until responding to this post did it occur to me that the answers to these questions would involve reading the Constitution, and if I've ever read it in its entirety before today I don't recall doing so. If nothing else, it has already aided me in better understanding my own thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top