Big Dog and Mr. Mannn have already taken you to task for being the liberal you are -- not that that's a crime, btw. Once you recognize your disease, however, you can take steps to fix it. Spending some time here just might be the pill to fix that disease.
That said, I will take you to task for your "father figure" nonsense.
You're trying to look at the state as being a necessity. In any society, some organization is certainly bound to happen and is appropriate, so we won't debate that. I will point out, however, that the very essence of government is to restrict liberty.
That business of individual liberty is central to the point I want to make with you. Liberty is what enables us to succeed and to prosper without that "father figure" you love so dearly. Liberty is what makes us stronger as individuals and as individuals within a collective. Liberty is what I served to defend, and perhaps yourself as well. Liberty is what America is for and about.[1]
There are balances we must maintain, of course. We can't have anarchy and we obviously can't have a police state.
Oops. Waitaminute. Police state...[2]
IRS. Fast and Furious. Benghazi. NSA. EPA. And the list goes on and on and on.
People who think like you about "father figures" make excuses and otherwise pander to the shitstink scandals I just mentioned.[3] You (collective you) turn a blind eye to these outrages because in your minds, it's acceptable for the government to behave in this manner.
People like you forget one basic, irrefutable fact: Governments are PEOPLE. Governments are FALLIBLE. Governments MUST BE RESTRICTED FROM TOO MUCH POWER.
[1]Liberty requires responsibility.A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
You serving in a foreign country and shooting at hajis isn't really protecting liberty, or me for that matter. Fighting terrorists in the Homefront, that protects me. Not the US's neo-imperialist invasion of foreign countries simply because they didn't bow to our will.
Also, America being founded upon
liberty certainly depends on where you look. On an ideological basis, they advocated classical liberalism, basically enlightenment-era ideology from Europe. However, you look at what the US government did, and you can very much see how this country contradicted its own principles, and especially a lot in contemporary times (even before Obama got into office, sorry.)
[2]You think this is a police state? You haven't seen anything yet, my friend. Why did you add the EPA in there? Do you consider environmental regulations a part of the evil police state machine?
[3]Nice strawman. I detest these schemes, and absolutely shit policy (i.e, Fast and Furious, giving guns to Mexican cartels isn't really a good idea, that's like giving bombs to the Mujahideen.) It's the constant conservative fallacy to call anybody who doesn't fall into their narrow views a liberal, and to assume that they like all the
opposite things conservatives do to make it easier to attack their views.
I used "neoliberalism" as a synonym for modern Progressivism, which is authoritarian collectivism. I stand corrected.[1]
However, I stand by my characterization of Liberalism/Progressivism as the American political theory which places the State in loco parentis.
Strawman argument. Bitchslap for you.[2]
You're still a liberal. Own it, as we as here at CC.[3]
[1]The modern American Progressivism is probably one of the farthest things from authoritarian collectivism, and this is a strawman in order to make it easier to attack. Progressives still want the same capitalism you do.
[2]So, the establishment of order in society did not contribute to the advancement of culture, technology, writing systems, civilizations, and more due to the acquisition of agricultural surplus and the establishment of permanent settlements? Well then, I'm guessing African tribes in stateless societies should be burgeoning superpowers today, yes?
[3]Again, calling me a liberal is a strawman. You have to go deeper than "if you have views contradictory to mine you're a liberal." By your standards, any single person who does not advocate for smaller government and individual liberty is a liberal. You'd be calling Julius Evola, a traditionalist, who proclaimed he was an anti-fascist, but also anti-democratic, a liberal, and that would be quite wrong to the highest degree.