Do we need a Big Brother?

[Yeahman]

Does the state have the authority to decide what is best for our own good? I'm talking about consenting adults here. Not children or those in a psychologically unstable state.

Stuff like universal healthcare or homeowner's insurance or Social Security. The only reasoning behind it is that we don't trust people with their money so we have to make sure they spend it a certain way. The state establishes the financial priorities of the individual.

In the case of universal healthcare, it doesn't cost the state any more to just cut them a check instead and let the individual decide whether to buy health insurance or not.

In the case of homeowner's insurance which some states mandate, is it really the state's responsibility?

Social Security is just an extreme example where a mandatory regressive tax is packaged as a "retirement fund" which provides less benefits than a private investment account. Why can't we be trusted to save on our own?

BTW, I'm not taking any position on this yet except for the tax on the poor AKA Social Security which I am opposed to.

[ism]

The term "Big Brother" is more about surveillance and indoctrinating fear. What you are describing is more of an authoritarian "Father Knows Best" type of state.

"Big Brother" would apply to the current FCC spectre that hounds "indecent" speech, the terrorism threat color level, the PATRIOT Act, the recently-abandoned Carnivore program, Echelon, registration of Arabs, etc..

"Father Knows Best" is the type of state that tells you to put your allowance into the piggy bank, you can't sell your body while you're living under my roof, no one smokes pot in this house, you can't marry because you're gay, get some insurance because it's good for you, and you are not getting rid of that baby.

[Yeahman]

"Father Knows Best" is the type of state that tells you to put your allowance into the piggy bank, you can't sell your body while you're living under my roof, no one smokes pot in this house, you can't marry because you're gay, get some insurance because it's good for you, and you are not getting rid of that baby.
I think prostitution should be legalized. I think marijuana should be legalized so long as it can be kept away from children and it is used in a reponsible manner. That may not be possible.
I think the state should get out of marriage too. And I think the government does have a role in protecting children.

[Mr.Lum]

What the hell do you need insurance to drive for? That's bullshit. Having insurance makes you drive better? Why does the government regulate what you can say or do on the tele? Thats stupid too. Fuck them, I should watch whatever the hell I want. If some middle aged uptight suburban whiny momma doesn't want her baby to see honkers or hear swears then she shouldn't have them watching that damn show. Fuck parental advisory labels and TV warnings. Waste of space on the screen. With that said, I think people need to have some degree of government aid (optional of coarse) for healthcare and for when they're old. We have too much inequality it's disgusting. And the idea that private groups will fix it is bullshit because if they were going to do that they'd have done it by now. The government is a bunch of disengenuous lazy bastards who don't help anybody because it's so smug and comfortable. They come up with the most piss poor ideas then try to act like "government can't fix it". Maybe YOU can't fix it because you can see other countries governments fixing it. It's not impossible. I'd prefer to elect these assholes every year and half and set strickter term limits so they can't just sit on capitol hill and waste time and make money. Lazy ass wipes. And they need to raise the bloody taxes if they can't pay for all their spending. What a bunch of morons. Where's the money going to come from? I think they're a bunch of lazy idiots who don't want to fix the system they broke. Old people in government really need to get over themselves. They are not that special. And it annoys the hell out of me that theres going to be so many old geezers shuffling around pretty soon as well and the government has no plan to keep these arthitis machines in line. They'll be clogging up the roads and stinking up the department stores. What is the government going to do -- or anyone? Probably nothing, private organizations will save the day. My ass. Where are they now? I doubt they'll be there in 20 years either. These old fuckers need to shape up. Our government sucks.

[SunWuKong]

well, auto insurance is not really to protect yourself. it's to protect whoever you may end up hitting on the road. sometimes you're not going to be able to afford to fix the other person's car or pay his/her hospital bills. that's where auto insurance comes in.

likewise, it is the same with home owner's insurance. it's to protect that dumbass that's suing you because he tripped and fell on his ass while walking across your lawn. and other similar incidents. you may not have enough money to pay his damages, but your insurance policy will have enough money.

[MovingForward]

Does the state have the authority to decide what is best for our own good? I'm talking about consenting adults here. Not children or those in a psychologically unstable state.

Stuff like universal healthcare or homeowner's insurance or Social Security. The only reasoning behind it is that we don't trust people with their money so we have to make sure they spend it a certain way. The state establishes the financial priorities of the individual.

In the case of universal healthcare, it doesn't cost the state any more to just cut them a check instead and let the individual decide whether to buy health insurance or not.

In the case of homeowner's insurance which some states mandate, is it really the state's responsibility?

Social Security is just an extreme example where a mandatory regressive tax is packaged as a "retirement fund" which provides less benefits than a private investment account. Why can't we be trusted to save on our own?

BTW, I'm not taking any position on this yet except for the tax on the poor AKA Social Security which I am opposed to.

Intriguing topic. I'd rather the state not have many of these authorities until or unless the state demonstrates dramatically improved attention to detail/individual, personal responsibility, objectivity, and the stamina to stay on top of any of this with regard for the future, not the past.

Homeowners - absolutely none of the state's business - I simply can't imagine anyone not being able to envision on their own a loss of life or property owing to a housing misfortune - buy it or not, just don't tell me you didn't know what could happen to a house upon occupancy.

Social Security - not sure about this - it is Social Security and don't hear many folks complain upon retirement excluding the growing number of complaints from those NEARING retirement fearful of deficiencies.

[SunWuKong]

Homeowners - absolutely none of the state's business - I simply can't imagine anyone not being able to envision on their own a loss of life or property owing to a housing misfortune - buy it or not, just don't tell me you didn't know what could happen to a house upon occupancy.

well, like i said before. homeowner's insurance is not to protect yourself, but to protect other people, just like auto insurance.

[Yeahman]

Social Security - not sure about this - it is Social Security and don't hear many folks complain upon retirement excluding the growing number of complaints from those NEARING retirement fearful of deficiencies.
Well people who are getting checks aren't gonna complain about it. Those who do complain are the young who have to pay it. Especially blacks who receive fewer benefits because they tend to have a shorter life span. Yes, Social Security makes black people poorer! It's really something that, if everyone knew how it really worked, most liberals and conservatives would oppose.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Most people are pretty fuckin dumb, so of course I don't trust most people with their money to save for retirement, get proper medical care, etc. On the other hand, I don't trust government to do it either, cuz of their proven track record of incompetence and kleptomania.

[asvenus]

we need neither the 'big brother' or the 'father knows best' states..i can talk for the USA as i know eff all about any policies over there, just about grasp the ones over here (UK)..

[bluemonq]

note: the word 'you' is used in a general sense
fine, i don't give a flying fuck about what happens to people. fine, we'll have a libertarian government.

as long as you don't end up whining about your state of affairs for your poor decisions or suing people for stupid shit. you know what i'm saying? all right, you blew your life savings on that plasma tv, and the next day you get fired from your job. you're broke, what do i care? i better not catch you on the street, harrassing me for money or robbing a store or someone, you hear? i'll press for death penalty charges in those cases. bug your friends and neighbors for assistance, just not strangers. if you 2 year-old kid eats one of those jelly candys, chokes and dies because of it, even though it's clearly labelled "Not for children under the age of five", you better not sue the manufacturer. if i were the judge, i'd dismiss the case and have you prosecuted for frivolous lawsuits. fine, if you don't want driver's insurance and you total my car, i'll expect you to pay in full. don't have the money? too bad, no bankruptcy protection for you. sell your house, give me your paycheck, etc. and if you can't do that, sell your body. i'm serious

what i am tired of people doing is saying, "oh, this is such a waste of money" or, "oh, criminals are criminals" or, "this is against my rights; go stuff yourself", but when it invovles THEM, they're like, "oh NOW it's a different matter". you know what? STFU!!! if you want less regulation, fine, but you better, and i damn well mean you BETTER be ready to take 100% complete responsibility for WHATEVER you do or have a red hot poker shoved through your abdomen if you don't.

wow, i feel SOOO much better for getting that out of my system. i think i'm beginning to like the rant room.

[Deadpool]

BIg brother does't care whether you need him or not.

[kitty]

Well people who are getting checks aren't gonna complain about it. Those who do complain are the young who have to pay it. Especially blacks who receive fewer benefits because they tend to have a shorter life span. Yes, Social Security makes black people poorer! It's really something that, if everyone knew how it really worked, most liberals and conservatives would oppose.

*rolls eyes* instead, i'm sure, ye110, you're saying only YOU are smart enough to "really know".

yes, i think there are many programs the state should institute for the populace. why? because the invisible hand doesn't always work. if the gov't doesn't provide healthcare, capitalism doesn't ensure that poor would have proper access to adequate healthcare even IF they saved properly for it.

a state (like canada, for example) doesn't socialize necessarily because they assume the poor don't know how to spend their own money, but because they want to ensure certain basic necessities for everyone that won't necessarily be provided in a capitalistic society/economy divided so heavily along class lines.

to argue that social security, medicare, etc... exists only because of some father knows best idea is to greatly oversimplify to the point of irrelevance the whole ideal behind such federal programs.

[SunWuKong]

i am actually at ease with the fact that many things that the state spends on are not going to be operations where you can actually even break even with taxes. i think many of the things that the state does, like public education, is inherently supposed to be operations that just suck in more money.

[Yeahman]

*rolls eyes* instead, i'm sure, ye110, you're saying only YOU are smart enough to "really know".

yes, i think there are many programs the state should institute for the populace. why? because the invisible hand doesn't always work. if the gov't doesn't provide healthcare, capitalism doesn't ensure that poor would have proper access to adequate healthcare even IF they saved properly for it.

a state (like canada, for example) doesn't socialize necessarily because they assume the poor don't know how to spend their own money, but because they want to ensure certain basic necessities for everyone that won't necessarily be provided in a capitalistic society/economy divided so heavily along class lines.

to argue that social security, medicare, etc... exists only because of some father knows best idea is to greatly oversimplify to the point of irrelevance the whole ideal behind such federal programs.
Well you have to seperate SS from the other entitlement programs since it hurts the poor more than it helps them. That wasn't always the case, but it is today.

I'm not saying that those who can't afford something shouldn't have it. I believe, as you do, that the state should ensure that everyone recieves certain basic necessities. Far left liberals don't have a monopoly on charity which is what you seem to think. But what a lot of people seem to forget is that WE pay have to pay for them! The state doesn't have a money tree.

Look at SS. We put into it via a regressive tax and receive it right back if we're lucky. There is no income redistribution. It is purely, "father knows best." How can a liberal justify social security?

The other things are only slightly better. Let's take healthcare. My whole point was not that the poor should not be able to provide healthcare, but that we mandate healthcare. Why not just cut everyone a check instead? It makes no difference to the government (it costs just as much) and there is just as much income redistribution. If they want to but health insurance with it, they can do so. But the state is saying that it MUST be used for healthcare? What is the reasoning behind that if not "father knows best"?
But if just cutting checks makes you feel uneasy, why not just provide vouchers? What must they accept the government-run program? The government can keep its program and people can choose it if they want but why require it, if not "father knows best"?

[kitty]

if you read my post, you'll see that i'm saying that just 'cutting the poor a cheque' doesn't necessarily ensure that they'll still have access to adequate healthcare.

the poor are still poor. and there's more to unequal healthcare opportunities than just money. location (inaccessibility) for one. unequal standards of care for another. racial/sexual bias still exists, particularly in the field of medicine. not all injuries are made equal, but all healthcare cheques would have to be, under your system.

the invisible hand does not cure all. sometimes father does 'know best' when it comes to providing for those basic necessities you claim you support but offer no viable solutions for guaranteeing for the citizenry in your uber-capitalistic-conservative model of government.

we had an SS debate awhile ago. it is not a given that SS harms the poor, so if you want to go there, resurrect the old thread. meanwhile, since not everyone agrees with you, don't assume that your opinions are absolute fact and a proper foundation for debate.

and what makes you think that i think that conservatives can't be charitable? don't assume anything about me that you have never directly asked, or i might have to make the same kind of assumption that you are guilty of. it's foolishishness to assume that i hold ALL conservatives in as low regard as you seem to think i do.

[Faithless]

...
In the case of universal healthcare, it doesn't cost the state any more to just cut them a check instead and let the individual decide whether to buy health insurance or not.
...
But it sounds like you'd still need some form of oversite, some administration to see that the program is running "according to plan or design".

What you're rehashing is the age old argument about form of government is best for the people -- which goes back to the classic ideals of Democrat verses Republican.

Like Ism, I don't know if the term "big brother" is the right one. Don't think "father knows best" fits, either. I see it as "Mama knows best". :rolleyes: Whose there for you, more times than not, than mama?

[Yeahman]

But it sounds like you'd still need some form of oversite, some administration to see that the program is running "according to plan or design".
Of course, though it would be significantly less. But that's not the point. Shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves where they should spend their money instead of the government deciding for them?

[ism]

Look at SS. We put into it via a regressive tax and receive it right back if we're lucky. There is no income redistribution. It is purely, "father knows best." How can a liberal justify social security?We don't receive our own money back, it is not a retirement plan, it is not an investment. SS is a tax on workers to support the current set of old people. Other countries have cultural safety nets in which children will house and take care of their parents, barrios and villages work together to help elders who have no one else, but America isn't like that. Making sure senior citizens who cannot work to get out of poverty do not get into poverty in the first place serves the public good as much as the amount of money going into funding the military, so it's not a question of liberalism or conservatism. Besides, I don't see how it's any more "Father Knows Best" than forcing people to invest the money.

If there was no SS, we would have a massive problem as millions of senior citizens become homeless and starve to death. So stop framing SS as some kind of retirement plan because it's not. It's a public service intended to provide a baseline income to prevent that problem from happening.

Take advantage of your 401k, or if you're gubmint, the TSP. Max out your IRA, invest in mutual funds or real estate. If you're feeling lucky, try the stock market or lottery, collect baseball cards, and get your kids daily tennis lessons. Encouraging Americans to prepare for retirement is a separate problem from fixing what's wrong with SS.

[Yeahman]

SS is a regressive tax. Why do you support regressive taxation?
If there was no SS, we'd still have welfare.
I've been saying that if we replace SS with welfare, it would be much more progressive. Why are you opposed to that?

[ism]

I'm not opposed to improving SS, but I know well enough not to incorporate it into another broken system. Welfare code deals with people who are temporarily unable to work, has been reworked in many states to give benefits only to those who seek work, and some states require that the recipient have dependants, and generally doesn't provide enough to break the poverty line. Why would you complicate it by absorbing retirees who intend to never work again, or can't work again, with the added bonus of giving them much less money, disproportionate to what they put in? Does this change the fact that you'll still pay the same amount of tax, just diverted to a different program, paying for people's benefits now?

[Yeahman]

*sigh* I went over all this before.

My plan...
Eliminate Social Security meaning no more SS contributions. Pay off all existing obligations but no more. It'll be paid off by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Expand welfare so that anyone below the poverty line can receive 50% of the amount they fall short. If you want we can still have mandatory private accounts to make up for the other 50%.

Now the remaining SS obligations as well as the expanded welfare are being paid for by a progressive income tax instead of the regressive SS tax. Benefits will be need based. The rich will no longer receive SS checks.

I've been trying to explain over and over again how the current system hurts the poor but far-left wingers seem to have a knee-jerk reaction in opposing anything but minor patching for SS.

[John0101]

Going back to the orginal question I would have to say, YES, we do need a big brother, but I am not saying that there should be a total authoritarian rule.

The real question is how do we balance the line between personal freedoms and government intervention? I believe this question goes a bit deeper and we should address it by looking at the role of equality.

The role of government should atleast address problems that arises from coordination failure in the public, the "tragedy of the commons". Restrictive measures are needed inorder to maintain the increased welfare for all.

[jeee]

In general, no. I'm in favor of small government though I see the need for SOME social programs. Anything you own yourself, you are going to take care of better than public property.

[Shuriken]

Let me just join with the others to say that the basis of this whole discussion is misleading and the title of the thread is disingenuous.

"Big Brother," of course, was the name of the hyper-authoritarian figure(head?) in George Orwell's novel 1984. But the kind of state and federal systems that ye110man is talking about are rather benign and can be influenced by voters. When it comes to Social Security et al., there are no "thought police," no torture, and all of the "newspeak" is coming from those who want to drastically change the system (using the term "personal accounts" to describe private accounts, etc.).

Yes, capitalism is a good thing, by and large, but it can't do everything. I believe that there is a role for government in doing the things that capitalism can't and providing a peaceful marketplace where that economic system can flourish.

So, to call the New Deal or New Society governmental systems "Big Brother" is a misnomer and doesn't make for an honest discussion.

[Yeahman]

I did not mean "Big Brother." If I could I would edit the title to say "Father knows best?"

For course government needs to play a role. We aren't going to build our own roads. That type of government program is not a "Father knows best" program but a program that is required and demanded. Social Security is entirely different. The government is saying that we cannot be trusted to save for retirement so the government will take some of our money and save it for us. Like a mother holding on to a little kids money until the kid is old enough to use it wisely.