Somewhat disturbing comment by MSNBC contributor last night

[DemPGH]

Disturbing? No. I agree with the person who said that at worst it's optimistic.

I'm an academic, and from my standpoint that quote represents the very first tenet of philosophy of government and economics from the perspective of a progressive.

It's very clear in the Constitution that there is a decided role for Government beyond providing a military. If the Government responds positively to a disaster, or establishes rules that protect the minority, I think that's quite possibly the best use of Government.

[badgate]

It'd be disturbing if he said government's best purpose is to "help people."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That's government's raison d'être, the way it proves its legitimacy.  It's a government's primary duty and obligation to care for its citizens. 

The government helping people isn't disturbing. However, the government "caring" for them is.

Why is that?

Care involves attention and love.  A caring state implies a paternalistic view of government and the idea that the state has a soul or organic reality that is capable of love.

[ingemann]

After reading this thread, I suddenly understand why Katrina ended up such a disaster, if so many people with an active interest in politic find it disturbing when someone suggest that the government should help or care for its people.

No one deal as well with natural disasters as first world governments, they have the resources, the infrastructure and the force which enable them to ensure that people get food, water and shelter, that people are moved away from disaster zone, and that people trying to sabotage the process are stopped.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

He's trolling conservatives folks. Nothing more.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Well, my point was completely missed by most.  The idea was this particular woman seems to think any government involvement is inherently helpful and that's not a good way to look at things. 

[You kip if you want to...]

I don't see the problem with this.

The government should help people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That's government's raison d'être, the way it proves its legitimacy.  It's a government's primary duty and obligation to care for its citizens. 

The government helping people isn't disturbing. However, the government "caring" for them is.

Why is that?

Care involves attention and love.  A caring state implies a paternalistic view of government and the idea that the state has a soul or organic reality that is capable of love.

Not necessarily.  There's a difference between "I care about you", and "the nurse cared for the patient by changing his bandages".  You can have the second without the first.

[ingemann]

Well, my point was completely missed by most.  The idea was this particular woman seems to think any government involvement is inherently helpful and that's not a good way to look at things. 

So you decided the best way to deal with it was to take a statement completely out of any context, present it to us and expect us to agree with you that the statement is disturbing. I completely agree with her, a country only reason for existing is to improve the lives for its citizens, and if you think that doesn't include helping people in disaster area, you completely miss the point.

You know what I find disturbing, that so many people here think it's wrong for a state to help and care for its people. That's the mindset of totalitarianism, where the state only purpose is for the state to exist.

 

[Blue3]

Lawrence O'Donnell is a guy.  AWallTEP81, did you even see the actual clip? It's pretty clear that he's a guy lol.

And as I explained on the last page, he openly calls himself a Socialist:
Lawrence O'Donnell describes himself as a Socialist... a moderate socialist, who says anyone who believes in Social Security and Medicare are socialist... but still, he openly welcomes the "Socialist" label.

Though you definitely don't need to be a socialist to believe the government can help people.