Talk:Family as a model for the state

message: Mr. Tudoreanu likes to do a lot of editing.  He edits and edits and edits.  But does he create?  Does he reference?  Does he quote?
Look at his contrib list.  What does he know of the Classical World?  Does he read Aristotle, Cicero or any Classical Scholar?  None whatsoever.  But he does feel himself qualified to edit things out he has no comphrension of.
Please Mr. Tudoreanu leave off the editing until you have read the material yourself and did some research on the subject.WHEELER 18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Looking at Wikipedia's naming conventions, I think the article's name should be changed to something like 'Family as a State paradigm'.  Any opinions out there?  --Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care either way.  I just chose the shortest thing I could think of.  WHEELER 01:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why include this misuse of the term 'paradignm'?  It's surely a model (in most cases explanatory), possibly a theory. Perhaps Family as model for the state? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sound okay with me Mel.  Whatever we choose must have the connotations of Politics and Family and influence on the state organization. WHEELER 21:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to this move?  Anyone have a better suggestion (I must admit that mine is a little on the clumsy side, but I can't think of anything better). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Sounds a good name.  Smoddy (t) (e) 22:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I have adapted WHEELER's text en bloc to add some weight to the jejune article Paternalism, which seemed to be sketching out a simple-minded context for abortion issues. I toned down WHEELER's characteristically emphatic tone and eliminated all claims that might be attacked as a POV that did not suit our prejudices. I think that when one googles "Family/State paradigm", comes up with no "hits" and attempts on that basis to efface the entry, perhaps there is more motivating force than immediately meets the eye. --Wetman 21:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Paternalism refers to a policy that prevents others from doing harm to themselves or a belief in such policies." - I believe that this statement is incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary defines paternalism as "the policy of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of one's subordinates or dependants in their supposed best interest". This is clearly more accurate. The crux is that the justification is "it's in your own best interest", and the scope extends beyond avoiding harm, and includes forcing people to do something because it's better than the alternative, even though that alternative may not be harmful. For example, if I wanted to become an accountant, but because of a governmental psychometric testing policy I was forced to become a lawyer on the grounds that this was the optimum profession for me, and therefore it would be for my own good if I was to pursue it, then what has been averted (my becoming an accountant) was neither harmful to myself nor others. Nevertheless, the government's policy would be described as extreme paternalism. VivaEmilyDavies 00:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Certainly 'paternalism' is much too narrow for the sort of view found in writers like Aristotle and Locke. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Certainly true. The family as a model for the state is one  useful metaphor of paternalism, as paternalism is one product of taking the family as a model for the state. The text there will have an independent evolution I think. --Wetman 20:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Paternalism]]

message: There are two main sorts of approach referred to in the article: those people who describe, explain, or justify the state in terms of the family, and people who talk about the family in terms of the state.  Of course there's some overlap between them, but shouldn't the distinction be made clearer in the structure of the article? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation 

message: Within a few weeks, when Wikipedians will be deciding whether or not Mel Etitis's character will make him a suitable administrator, this Discussion page will be worth looking at. --Wetman 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] for Admin

message: Confucius predates Aristotle in using family as a model for the state.  He believed the child should be subordinate to the parent, younger brother to the older, wife to husband, and subject to the sovereign who is to be regarded as the father of the nation.  The state as the family writ large was the most harmonious, orderly, and natural form of government.  This was later expanded to cover international relations(i.e. the emperor of China as the older brother of the king of Korea).  Confucian family theory is still espoused in North Korea to justify their method of leadership succession.
Should this be included in the article?
:I definitely agree. The Confucian model should be includet. 85.124.176.91 12:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Confucianism]] 

message: It's shocking that this page has no reference to fascism. The family metaphor for the state is such a key part of fascism, *the* key part in some expressions (for example, japanese fascism has the "family-system principle" which is very simply the definition of this article; Bertrand de Jouvenel equates the "fascist man" with the "head of family man"; Wilhelm Reich calls the family the fundamental replicating unit of fascism in some sense) 00:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism