emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
In discussing the two major veins of Govt:
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything
I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.
The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.
What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.
Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.
And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.
What do you think of this analogy?
DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.
NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.
And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!
* the social programs and "promotion of the general welfare through Govt"
compared with the view of the Constitution as
* limiting the authority and reach of Govt to maximize the freedom and liberty of the people
to lead the social and business development instead of depending on govt to initiate and manage everything
I came up with an Analogy I'd like to run past
both the Liberals and Conservatives on this Forum.
The Analogy is to Arranged Marriages, where if a woman has a lot of kids to take care of,
the family urges her to marry a rich man who will take care of her so she can manage all the kids.
What if this woman does NOT want to marry that man under the terms he or the family has spelled out. What if she wants to manage her kids herself, and be independent, even if it means struggling and getting private help from friends. She does not want to be dependent or under the wing of this man against her will.
Does this remind you of people pushing to have all health care managed through govt
in order to take care of more people, while half the nation is saying no we don't want to do it that way. We want to manage it freely through other means.
And people are fighting over who is going to prevent that many kids from suffering neglect.
Is it better to go along with the Sugar Daddy who is going to cover as many kids as possible until better plans can be worked out. Is it okay to marry for money just to have the stability to meet urgent needs, and then maybe divorce later when the family can be stabilized without depending on this man acting as the support, but in an UNWILFUL relationship where the woman does NOT want to be with him in that way, but would rather have support for the kids without depending on this man she does NOT want to BE FORCED INTO RELATIONS WITH.
What do you think of this analogy?
DEBATE question: Does it apply to Liberal Democrats who keep pushing to depend on Govt for social support, even if the people in the relationship say NO we don't want to be compelled against our will. What if America is the woman and the Govt is the man, and half the nation is saying no we don't want to be forced into that relationship. We want to be free to manage ourselves.
NOTE: If this Analogy is not perfect enough for you, to say yes or no, please clarify, please revise it to describe what you see going on with either the Democrats/Liberals if you think it applies there, or if you think it is the Conservatives/Republicans trying to force policies on people against their will. Please feel free to reply with your own adaptations if that helps.
And you can still answer yes or no, does this apply to Democrats/Liberals' view of Govt?
(or you can argue it applies more to Republicans/Conservatives and explain where). Thanks!
Last edited: