Can't you tell, I'm procrastinating!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Let's talk about something I've heard a lot of lately.

THE GOVT WANTS TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE!!!11

First: we are the govt

So, if the govt wants to control our lives, it's because we want control.
The govt isn't something different from the people; politicians are empowered by the people, chosen by the people, and originate from the people.

If the govt wants to control our lives, it's because PEOPLE are bent on domination.

Second:

Some people are fond of saying that progressives want to control every aspect of your life (not just Glen Beck, but at least one member here says that too) and...well...that seems plainly and patently false. When politicians propose a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared sodas, they are not aiming to control your life. They are aiming to increase tax revenue so that the state can continue to fund things like schools and police departments. The state needs revenue to do things--taxes are not a punishment.

I would be very interested to learn where it is that people get the idea that progressives (which is really just code for left-wingers) want to control every aspect of your life (and citing Glen Beck does nothing, cause where did *HE* get that idea? he's just parroting someone else, and I want some damned proof that this statement is not 100% utter crap, kthx!)

Third: why is govt control inferior to private control of things like healthcare/education? I've encountered people who openly tell me that they want to see the public school system abolished. I do not understand why that would be a good idea. Education is a basic *need* that people have in order to become--well, just about anything. The argument I've heard goes like this:

Public schools do a bad job. Get rid of them. Private schools are better than public schools.
--but then poor people won't be able to get any education at all!
Well, give them vouchers. After all, the govt will be saving all kinds of money by not having to run public schools; so just give that money to poor people who cannot afford an education.

Here we run into a serious problem: just how much $$ is the govt going to give in vouchers and just how much $$ will it cost to send a child to a Quality school? Obviously there are going to *always* be schools of varying quality, right? So would we just be condemning the poor to the cheapest schools, which are likely to be the least enlightening? Some would say that is what we are doing right now. But even if that is true [which I'd say is probable] that doesn't make the alternative [private schools with vouchers] any better. What we should aim for is a system that does not condemn ANY of our youths to shitty education, but instead offers them all an equal opportunity.

Also: where would the money for vouchers come from? Would we still be taxing people everyone to pay for the education of some?

And a mildly unrelated thought experiment to end this out with:

Let's say we can numerically quantify Quality of Life. The higher the number the better. Which society do you believe to be better:

Where the whole society is at Q15
Or where the society is in a range of Q5-Q25

You might question the distribution in the ranged society. Is 80% of the society at Q8-10, while only 20% is at Q20-25? If this was reversed would it be better? What do you think about this?

Comments

[merig00.livejournal.com]

You are the government until the government has the power to tell you who you are.

Second:
Because a lot of liberals call themselves progressives these days. And because of this:



As for soda and cigarettes, I've never seen a politician saying let's tax soda so we'll have more revenue. Usually the argument goes like this: soda is bad for you, so we'll tax it that way you drink less bad soda and we get more revenue. Like it's a win-win situation.

Third:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432
Goes back to the results of the voucher program. And remember that the numbers are per studnet - so from the taxes we all pay.


Quality of Life is a tricky question - in my opinion in the range Q5-Q25 if you want to equate everyone you'll end up in Q10 not Q15. Also there's a question of increase in quality of life, if everyone is at the same level there will be a very slow grow in the quality over the years.

Controlling Glenn Beck's life

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I'm up for controlling Glenn Beck's life. He seems like he doesn't have a life. It would be nice if we could give him one so that he doesn't have to whine like a cry baby anymore.

Re: Controlling Glenn Beck's life

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Freedom is being controlled. Being controlled is freedom.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

where it is that people get the idea that progressives (which is really just code for left-wingers) want to control every aspect of your life

Because the people who argue this don't know the difference between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Totalarianism; They wrong assume these terms are interchangeable and that if the government tries to mandate *anything* that it is mandating everything.

why is govt control inferior to private control of things like healthcare/education?

It's not, but again these people have been conditioned to believe that government can do nothing right, and private corporations can do no wrong --
regardless of history painting a VERY different picture.

Private schools are better than public schools.

Dont believe that has been statistically proven. But you're right, I havent heard how the voucher system would NOT create a permanent serf class
of poor people who would attend schools with no decent funding.

where would the money for vouchers come from? Would we still be taxing people everyone to pay for the education of some?
That what the vouchers were I thought -- a "refund" of the taxes people pay towards public schools that their kids dont attend.


Where the whole society is at Q15
Or where the society is in a range of Q5-Q25

Too vague a nebulous since rights, freedoms, and jobs may be what people include in their definition of QAL.
QAL has to apply to most people -- I see your point, but would need to get people to agree to what those numbers mean
before they could answer it.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Would it make you happier if we all just said "big government liberals"? Since that is what the "common" person really means anyway.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

If BoE spends on public school 15-25k per student and local private school tuition is the same 15-25k per student, and private schools are better why not let private sector run the schools instead of BoE?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Because the people who argue this don't know the difference between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Totalarianism'

They don't know the difference because Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and Totalitarians call themselves Progressive or Liberal in today's society.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

from msn.encarta:

conservative
Synonyms: reactionary, backward-looking, conservative, illiberal, unreceptive, unreasonable, intolerant, bigoted, intransigent, diehard, medieval, prehistoric, outdated

progressive
Synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, reformist, enlightened, advanced, tolerant, radical

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

And conservatives need to be less inflamatory?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's worth asking the meaning of the phrase "Quality of life." After Stalin kicked the bucket the Russian people were at their strongest they have ever been and ever will be at least in my lifetime. He pioneered most of the ugliness Hitler refined, though.

By another standard the British Empire brought 1/4 the world under the rule of liberal democracy but in itself and in the USA it brought devastation unmatched by any empire in history. But absent the chaos and destruction, today's world is completely different. So.....how do we define quality of life? What are the arbiters?

As to your points-

1) Who is "we"? The current US government favors best 1% of the population that also happens to control 50% of the wealth. The current healthcare bill is one example of that. But given this, how, then, are we to state that the US government is really a "we" as opposed to "those guys over there" thing?

2) It's complete horseshit, of course. But far from lacking understanding when one considers that unless one is to the Left of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, then one is a Bolshevik Apparatchik bloodied on the blood of Kulaks to the Right-Wing idiots.

3) Given that the contemporary Right is becoming a bunch of neo-libertarian Randian Manchildren, are you surprised?

[wsdante.livejournal.com]

Being a Brit, I'm not entirely familiar with the workings of U.S. politics. With regards to your first point, I will say that our experience in the UK is that 'The People' are the government for approximately 24hrs every four years or so. (That would, of course be the day of the general election). After that, the 'winning' party get to push through whatever policies they like - whatever their campaign promises were.
Right now, since Tony (Dont-Blame-Me) Blair quit, we have had an unelected leader clinging to power for as long as he can and we have more street surveillance cameras per capita than any country in the world.

Ho hum...

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

um, this is true if we forget that we can have more participation then just on election days.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

First: we are the govt

In theory, not in practice.

But yes, the gov't wants to control our lives because enough other people want to control everyone else's lives.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What causes practice to diverge from theory?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'First: we are the govt'

You're a Fascist?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

We are not corporations.

[dzlk.livejournal.com]

I would be very interested to learn where it is that people get the idea that progressives (which is really just code for left-wingers) want to control every aspect of your life

It follows naturally from the delusion many people suffer that they would be in control of their lives if only the government stayed out.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

What's scary is the amount of truth in that.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Some people are fond of saying that progressives want to control every aspect of your life (not just Glen Beck, but at least one member here says that too) and...well...that seems plainly and patently false.'

Oh cool, so I can homeschool my kid and eat unhealthy food while toking up a cigarette at the local bar now, fucking awesome!

Oh... I can't? Oh...so you meant you don't want to control all aspects of my life, only the ones that you feel are important.

'The state needs revenue to do things--taxes are not a punishment.'

Well let's tax something that people use a lot of. Condoms. We'll follow it up with a tax on voting. You know, we're just raising revenues so it's okay. Just because we've always picked things that are unpopular, it's not meant as punitive.

'I would be very interested to learn where it is that people get the idea that progressives (which is really just code for left-wingers) want to control every aspect of your life'

From Progressives. They just delude themselves into believin g their positions aren't one of control.

'why is govt control inferior to private control of things like healthcare/education?'

Why are your parents the better decision makers for you when you were a kid than gov't appointed guardians? Why shouldn't we take all kids upon birth and dole them out on a requested basis?

'Let's say we can numerically quantify Quality of Life. The higher the number the better. Which society do you believe to be better:'

The one with slavery at Q20. Because if we can achieve a utopia through the complete disenfranchisement of a minority of the population, then it's worth it. That is the right answer apparently.

Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that we still have actual Leftist dictatorships extant in places like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Zimbabwe I fail to see how US Progressives are Left-Wing totalitarianism. Harry Reid= Kim Jong Il? You fucking kidding me?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When politicians propose a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared sodas, they are not aiming to control your life. They are aiming to increase tax revenue so that the state can continue to fund things like schools and police departments. The state needs revenue to do things--taxes are not a punishment.

No, they're choosing things like sugared sodas because those are "bad." It's entirely a way to control one's life by making the less desirable things more expensive.

Third: why is govt control inferior to private control of things like healthcare/education? I've encountered people who openly tell me that they want to see the public school system abolished. I do not understand why that would be a good idea. Education is a basic *need* that people have in order to become--well, just about anything.

The government ain't doing it too well. That's why.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As opposed to the conservative definition of small government, where it simply forbids people from having abortions, gay marriage, and makes miscarriage a felony. Yes....a complete lack of desire to control others there. Or is controlling people's sexual behavior not *really* controlling them?

[gillen.livejournal.com]

" politicians are empowered by the people, chosen by the people, and originate from the people"


Well, no. Politicians are chosen by the corporations.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

you with your truth!

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

...Jan 23, 2010

[anyusa0030.livejournal.com]

a went to school in africa ,before you say third world country is not the standard you want to set consider that when come to college here i was able to test out of all the first level science classes .as i was saying a lot is being said about class sizes 30 student is not a big number 1:10 ratio is crazy can you imagine how big school will have to be to a comodate this and do we even have enough hours in a day.anyways in my country we used to have betwen 25-40 student in aclass depending on subject,for those electives that a lot of people took like geography you will have like 40 student and things like physics that fewer people took there will be a bout 30 student the ,the tearches changed every year and my experienced was that students perfomence did not depend on how big the class was that paricular year but how good the tearcher was ,it comes down to how well a tearcher can explain the subject matter to the students ,some teachers are very knowledgable but can hadly explain the subject in a interesting and easy way that students can understand,i think the furcus should be in how teachers are trained .separating students on how smart they are as a bad effect on those student deemed not smart but also on the teachers that have to teach them ,the tearched will set the standard down no reason to expect so much after all the students are already marked stupid, i say this because my high school tried this for 2 years and ended abodoning it because the perfomance of those students that were lebled stupid become in even wose than before, this is because in a mixed clas groups from and friendships develope some betwenthe so called low achievers this groups can encourage better perfomance it might not make an d student into an A student but it might maqke him or her into D+ student.i got a C in english and i can honestly say withiout my best friend who was a A+ student inenglish i would have ended up with E.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Control me, but I want a bigger cage and blue nickel chains/shackles. If you put this on your election platform you're going to win elections. Honesty is the best policy.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The bigger cages are only for the alpha males. Ya know, the ones that procreate...

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It is somewhat hilarious that certain folks on this blog think that the left wants to control everyone, but right does not.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The popular expression of right and left in America are both about control. It's all to different degrees in different ways.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

You know a lot of this discussion would fall apart if everyone understood the difference between right and left wing, conservative and liberal.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That would spoil the fun.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Obviously I was not talking about Tienanmen Square.

"we are the govt" is not true in some places (e.g. N.Korea) but in a republic where we have open and free elections--then it's applicable.

Slavery it is!

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

50.1% of the people have spoken!

Re: Slavery it is!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You really gotta quit it with the slavery meme.

Nobody is going to be buying and selling anybody.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Boycotts are also good.

[duarteandrea89.livejournal.com]

Ridding public education is quite a ridiculous idea. I'm appalled that there are people whom believe that it's something we should aim for. What is so much better about a private school education? I have attended both a public elementary school and then finished my high school years at a private, catholic school. I saw no difference between both. I had the same "kind" of educators. I had the same "kind" of education.
I know some believe that a private school offers a better future. Some believe that at a private school there is no trouble, etc. What world do you live in? I saw my share of fights, childish drama, etc. at my elementary school and I saw the same, if not worse, while attending my private high school. There were still fights. There were still those students who mouthed off our educators. I saw teen pregnancy. I saw drug dealing.
It's all the same.