Posted on 10/10/2004 9:05:37 AM PDT by trek
For many people the idea of a state that cares for every aspect of its citizens’ well-being is a highly desirable even utopian ideal. The rise of the “nanny state” in many Western countries was heralded as a triumph of political evolution.
For me, this is a highly dangerous prospect.
There are several reasons that lead me to this conclusion.
Firstly, human beings are, on principle, fallible and corruptible, who will take any opportunity to abuse power when it is placed in their hands. A state which intervenes in the affairs of its citizens to serve their every need inevitably will exercise enormous power over such citizens. This power if abused — and it will be — can lead to great injustice and oppression of the very people the state is supposed to take care of.
Secondly, citizens of such a nanny state may have their own sense of personal responsibility atrophy.
They will rely on the state to take care of their fellow citizens and will no longer feel personally obligated to care for other members of their society. Societies atomize and fragment, social groups such as tribes, unions, neighborhoods and so forth diminish in importance and strength, thereby rendering the citizens helpless before the all-powerful state and its organizations.
Western countries’ citizens are already facing the negative consequences of this type of state as they are increasingly being rendered incapable of standing up to their governments.
They find themselves unable to influence the course of their nations and realize that their governments are more and more serving the interests of the rich and powerful minority in those countries.
The overemphasis on elections and the so-called democratic process is no protection from the modern nation state. The glorification of individualism is a serious undermining of a society’s ability to protect itself from the depredation of the nation state.
Societies must emphasize personal responsibility and must protect systems of collective care such as extended families and unions. They must do this as a counter to the increasing power and intrusiveness of the nanny state.
What do you mean? This is a call for Islamist theocracy.
There's certainly that, but there's also the pandering to small but vocal pressure groups such as the gay lobby, or the illegal alien advocates. On the latter issue, both parties have sold us out.
I can agree with the personal responsibility part. Not sure how it'll curb the encroachment of the nanny state, though.
Do some research before you post this sort of thing again.
Clearly you're not familiar with the body of anti-American invective penned by Saudi Prince Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal.
Here's his Sept 24th warning to the Kurds, also published ini Arab News: "Your situation is almost hopeless. You have one last chance and that is to revolt on your leaders and align yourselves with the rest of Iraq against the Americans."
"The overemphasis on elections and the so-called democratic process is no protection from the modern nation state."
How do you explain that one?
I never said the guy was Thomas Jefferson. My point is that the all Saudis are not the fanatical kooks portrayed in the elite press.
The Saudis did not think the invasion of Iraq wise. I happen to disagree with them. But the post is not about foreign policy. It is about values.
He may not be a fanatical kook, but he is fanatically anti-American.
Hugo Chavez just survived an "election." The Communists always held "elections." But their elections did not mean popular governance. Elections do not in and of themselves guarantee good governance. Many despotic regimes use elections to legitimize the illegitimate.
Elections are the prerequisite to good government. Everything else is a dictatorship or a theocracy or both.
There is a profound irony here.
This clown is absoltely right. That's the good news.
The bad news is that he's describing islam, which he proceeds to promote.
Saddam had elections.
Firstly, human beings are, on principle, fallible and corruptible, who will take any opportunity to abuse power when it is placed in their hands.
And then goes on to criticize The overemphasis on elections and the so-called democratic process.
This is the part of the argument Islamowhackos use to advocate the Islamofascist political system of gender and religious apartheid based on Sharia law. They see the "laws of man" as fallible, and the "laws of Allah" (sharia) as superior.
Lets face it, he's not advocating democracy, or socialism here, so what kind of political system or "values" do you think he favors?
(Hint: See Publius6961 post #17)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.