The Nanny State

The Nanny State

How much control should the government have over our lives? Liberalism, as a world view, began with the belief that individuals should be self-reliant and thus should be left alone by the government to achieve their goals to the best of their potential. Modern conservatives (classical liberals) still believe this and work to limit the influence of government on our lives. In essence, freedom means freedom from government control (this is called negative freedom). 

But liberalism is a flexible ideology, and, in the 20th century, it moved leftwards on the political/economic/social spectra and began to accept some aspects of collectivism into its values. Modern liberals argue that, while freedom remains the goal, the government has a role to play in helping to remove the obstacles that are often in our way as we work towards our goals, and which are often insurmountable without help (positive freedom).

Think of all the ways that our various levels of government regulate our lives in the name of the common good and to prevent us from harming ourselves and others. The wearing of seatbelts in motor vehicles was made mandatory in 1987.  In 2011, the Alberta government made distracted driving a ticketable offence and, this year, increased punishments to include demerit points. In 2002, bike helmets were declared mandatory for Albertans under the age of 18. For the 2011-12 school year, Edmonton Public Schools banned junk food in vending machines located in all of its schools. In New York City, the mayor attempted to ban large-sized soft drink containers in order to act against the problem of obesity in his jurisdiction (although this was ruled to be beyond his power by the courts in 2014). And there are many, many more examples.

Each time such a rule was put into place it was highly controversial. Some argued that people should be left alone to live their lives and that each person should bear responsibility for their decisions. Others suggested that people need to be helped in order make good decisions.

Sometimes the government forces us to do things, not to help ourselves, but to help others in the name of the common good. One such example is the government's ability to force its citizens to give up their property under certain circumstances. The City of Edmonton has, for example, appropriated the homes of citizens who live in the way of LRT development. The city will pay market rates, but the home-owners have no ability to refuse to sell.

Read the following article to see another example that is currently an issue in our province:

 Alberta Transmission Lines

What do you think? Is it ok for our governments to limit our freedom in order to protect us from ourselves and our own bad decisions? Should they have the power to force us to act in the name of the common interest?

Welcome!

Welcome to Social 30-1 - the blog!

Here we'll be talking about ideologies - from left wing to right wing; from radical to reactionary and everything in between!

Over the course of the semester, I'll be posting articles and ideas on this blog that you will be expected to read and comment upon. Sometimes these postings will relate to a specific concept or case study from the course. Other times it will discuss a current event that deals with ideological values and beliefs.

I won't always be telling you when I've posted something new, so check often! Your comments will be used at the end of the course to help me evaluate your knowledge of course content and ideas. I will use this to help determine your mark. For many students in the past, this has had a big effect on their final grade!

Here's your first blogging opportunity - comment on this post by describing one ideology that you subscribe to. An ideology is a system of beliefs and values held by a person or a group of people that helps them to understand and interpret the world around them. Your ideology (or world view) helps to explain the past and determine a path towards the future. We all have many ideologies that help define who we are:

• political (communism, democracy, elitism etc.)
• economic (socialism, capitalism etc.)
• social (libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism. environmentalism, feminism etc.)
• religious (catholicism, Islam, protestantism, atheism, agnosticism etc.)

Of course, since this is the beginning of the semester, you don't have a lot of information upon which to base your opinion. But that's ok. Simply think about what ideologies are (reading the first chapter of Perspectives on Ideology will help) and how they relate to you.

You might want to think about what political party you would vote for (especially given the recent federal and provincial elections, or the presidential election in the U.S.) or whether you believe in the rights of individuals to live their lives without government influence (individualistic values) or the rights of the group to be safe from problems such as poverty, fear and hunger through government policies (collectivist values). You may want to focus on a non-political ideology (such as religion) that reflects your beliefs.

It is very important that you discuss an ideological world view that you currently subscribe to rather than one that you think 'might be nice' based what you read in the textbook.

Here is an example of an excellent comment made by a previous student on this question:

I subscribe to the ideological belief that the utopic society would be comprised of a balance between capitalist and socialist values. Socialism inspires the idea of a perfect society, where every individual is treated equally regardless of how contributing to that society they may be. However I believe human nature is selfish in it's core, and as a result of that, a socialist society could never truly function. For example if a research scientist position pays the same amount as a grocery store cashier, an individual would likely choose the easier career. For it is human nature to choose the path of least resistance. A person who is naturally individualistic, will not willingly work towards collectivism if there is no incentive. Socialism is beneficial though in it's value of taking care of everyone. Capitalism is an effective societal alternative, on the merit of it's ability to take advantage of our natural pre-disposition to 'look out for self'. Capitalism often creates a spread of wealth from the successful entrepreneur, to the workers, and eventually to the surrounding communities and businesses. However the wealth differences between the rich and the poor become very problematic, and foster resentment between the opposing economic classes. I believe a society should have at it's core capitalistic values for economic prosperity, yet socialistic systems should be in place to provide everyone with equal opportunities to access education, healthcare, security, as well as an equal say in government.

IMPORTANT: Remember that you will need to have created a Google account with your last name in the ID in order to comment.

Comment Rubric:

Here is the rubric that I will be using to provide feedback for you on your blog comments/responses. It measures the following elements: 

• How insightful your comments are.
• How well your comments demonstrate understandings of liberalism and other ideologies.
• How much effort was dedicated to discussing the required issue(s).

Comments are thoughtful, perceptive and insightful. Comments reflect considerable effort directed at understanding issues connected to liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry.

Proficient: Comments are accurate and interesting, but general.  The author demonstrates a solid understanding of issues connected to liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry. 

Satisfactory: Comments are brief and lacking depth but are connected to the issues 

surrounding liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry. Effort is very basic, but no more.

Poor: Comments are scant and/or unrelated to the blog entry. The entry may be inappropriate in content and/or style and vocabulary. Required understandings are insufficiently demonstrated. Effort is unsatisfactory.