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.
Saudi, a proud nation where if your maid tries to run away becasue of your treatment, you can simply accuse her of "theft" and she convinently ends of at "chop chop square" after Friday prayers...
But don't feel bad. You are in esteemed company. For example, Michael Moore and the kook left are solidly in your court.
My discussion with trek is above, please read it before commenting.
I said "Elections are the prerequisite to good government," not the predictor. This Saudi Prince Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal is quite dismissive of elections on the face of it, which can only mean that he's a fan of dictatorship, theocracy, or monarchy.
These nutballs as you call them have been supporting terror for decades.
(Quiz: What country did almost all of the 911 Murdering Islamic Terrorist Cowards come from?)
The amazing thing is that the terrorists have attacked them. Biting the hand that feeds, so the Saudis are finally waking up to the fact that if you support terrorists it is not guaranteed they will not attack you.
The French are learning this too.
And the Saudis still help fund terrorists.
Go figure.
Oh and LOL at the Michael Moore comment...He supports the terrorists.
So being as the poster you admonished for being in the court of Moore isn't.
Gee, who does that leave in the kook kourt?
I concur.
Good luck to you.
Oh btw... "Gee, who does that leave in the kook kourt?" LOL. Nice one. ;o)
Nor am I interested in insults. I believe we are on the same side. Where we differ is on the nature of the Saudi regime. There are two views. The neo-con view is that the regime is no different from Al Qaeda. Be advised there are other views. I don't always agree with Buchanan, but he is right on this one. And citing Dore Gold or any of the other neo-cons is not very convincing. But it does explain where you are coming from.
Keep in mind. In 1990 we went to war to preserve the Saudi regime. 41 was not of a mind that they were terrorists. During Reagan's presidency we worked with the Saudis to "fund the terrorists" in Afghanistan. This was a very effective tool in the war with the Soviets. But make no mistake. We were not only funding the "terrorists" in Afghanistan we were arming them! Those who are about demonizing the Saudis love to cite those efforts ... leaving out our role in the matter.
Look, we are not going to agree on this. My only request is that you consider sources other than the neo-cons. You may not want to believe it, but there are two sides to this question. You can start with Buchanan.
EOM
The Saudi regime itself spawned the greater evils there that I hinted upon in the earlier post. We used each other to defeat what we saw was a greater evil threat (Communist expansion) at the time, but the nature of the threat to our civilization had changed, and I guess if you want to leave it at that, I'll agree to disagree.
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.