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

O.o

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What. The. Flying. Fuck?

I've seen nobody propose killing all the wealthy and confiscating their wealth.

I've seen nobody propose a voluntary nationalization of the means of productions run by the workers.

I've seen nobody propose a one-party state built on paramilitary nationalism.

And I've seen absolutely nobody in the USA start shouting "Glory to the Race, Service to the State".

Re: O.o

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Look harder.

Re: O.o

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're doing this wrong:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Re: O.o

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Did the professor give you that link last week and you wanted to be impressive?

Re: O.o

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, I'm saying that making a statement like this and having absolutely nothing to back it up other than "Look it up, it'll show I'm right" doesn't fly. At least not with me. With Steve_Potocin, maybe, but not with me.

Re: O.o

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Maybe you need to go to more internet sites. Daily Kos is filled with dishonest communists and socialists. This community has several who always hedge their socialism.

Re: O.o

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Communism and socialism are first not the same thing, and second, the few actual Communists here (like Gillen) are very much *not* people who hide it. Communism's an extremist ideology, and totalitarians are never good at hiding that aspect of their movements.

You Fail Human Nature Forever.

Re: O.o

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Communism and socialism are first not the same thing'

Damn... because if they were, I wouldn't have to say them both separately. As I've been doing in every conversation where I've discussed them.

'the few actual Communists here (like Gillen) are very much *not* people who hide it.'

I applaud Gillen for his honesty and it's why I've seldom got pissy with him.

'Communism's an extremist ideology, and totalitarians are never good at hiding that aspect of their movements. '

Hell of an assumption. Do all Nazis have tattoos and wear leather jackets?

Re: O.o

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Er.....it's rare to find a Nazi who *hides* that he or she's an Anti-Semite who feels that the defeat of the Axis Powers was a Very Bad Thing.

Re: O.o

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Communism and socialism are first not the same thing'

Damn... because if they were, I wouldn't have to say them both separately. As I've been doing in every conversation where I've discussed them.


"Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and Totalitarians call themselves Progressive or Liberal in today's society."

That lumps them together pretty well into a category of two. Without clearly showing which is which. You said them both separately it's true, but did nothing to distinguish those four, let alone the latter two.

Re: O.o

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I said communists and socialists like to call themselves liberal and progressive. That doesn't mean the ideologies are one in the same. It just means a lot of self-described liberals aren't. But they like the think they are.