Monday, March 07, 2011

Do Australians really want a nanny state?

Share |
Currently in politics, Australia is offered a false alternative. It is a choice between fascism or social democracy on 'a back foot' (Liberal-National) or 'full steam ahead' (under Labour-Democrats-Greens). The reality is that they are essentially the same problem - no idea, or no intellectual, no rationality. They are functioning at an archeo-rational (primitive animalistic correlation level of awareness) which really befits animals. This of course leads them into the Nanny-State politics repudiated by the Liberal Democratic Party - which remains the 'least offensive' party in Australia.
See their response to the following poll "Poll finds most Australians believe Australia has become a nanny state":
Nick Leys From: Herald Sun May 08, 2010 12:00AM: EXCESSIVE rules and regulations have created a "nanny state" at the expense of key policy areas such as health, transport and education. New polling has found that most Australians - 55 per cent - believe Australia has become a nanny state and that government intervention and control in our daily lives has gone too far.
Now, read my response:
A survey can be swung anyway you want it, so one has to define one's terms. Do Australians support unqualified socialism, or unconditional, intrinsic love? I doubt it, though probably 5% of them do. Do they support unfettered, unregulated markets, I don't think so, yet the idea of maternal love of a 'nanny state' could be interpreted as either. They want a caring state, so the question is, do they want:
1. Unconditional, unthinking, arbitrary, indulgent, meaningless love
2. Conditional, contextual, principled, disciplined, intelligible love
They are the choices. The world has changed, so a gender dichotomy no longer exists, but I think you can argue that this 'love dichotomy' divides people between:
1. Those who seek safety, fearful, low self-esteem, care what other's think, collectivism as a moral primary
2. Those who seek rewards, values, efficacy, purpose, aspirations, individualism as a moral primary
They are the fundamental issues involved. Sadly, 99% of Australians don't think with such clarity because they don't know me. But I believe this is principled distinction you ought to be drawing. Otherwise put:
1. The mother who loves you for who you are - there are two varieties - the mother who hates herself and existence, and needs to destroy your life to justify her own pithy existence; or the indulgent mother who just lets you run around, doing your own thing, and lets you work it out.
2. The mother who recognises that humans (and children) have a nature and offers support commensurate with the objective, scientifically verifiable needs of the child. i.e. They are aspirational, so they study what children are like, i.e. Child cognitive and development theories, they find one which is compatible with the facts, using their critical thinking skills, they distinguish between two purported empirical studies which vaguely support two approaches.etc etc.
So whose your momma?
1. Liberal and Labour
2. Me - and hopefully some Libertarians interested in the philosophical/psychological roots of their "political correct" values.
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking |

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?