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

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I have no doubt at all in my mind that there are many so-called "progressives" who would be glad to see significantly more control than we already have. We've already seen the amount of "respect" they have for the Constitution, after all.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that Progressives insisted that the 14th Amendment be enforced despite conservatives killing people like Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, Jr. over their requests that it be so enforced.....

And given that conservatives believe in State's Rights on matters like making women carry ectopic pregnancies to term but not on matters such as say, California deciding to adopt stricter environmental regulations.....

And given that the contemporary conservatives' only response to the idea of the Public Option is to resurrect the Hoary Ghosts of secession and nullification.....

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Given that Progressives insisted that the 14th Amendment be enforced despite conservatives killing people like Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, Jr. over their requests that it be so enforced....

Giving that te 14th amendment is an affront against federalism and gives the government significant power over the states, you're not making a good case with that example.

And given that conservatives believe in State's Rights on matters like making women carry ectopic pregnancies to term but not on matters such as say, California deciding to adopt stricter environmental regulations.....

You're warping that a bit.

And given that the contemporary conservatives' only response to the idea of the Public Option is to resurrect the Hoary Ghosts of secession and nullification.....

Again, not a strong counterexample.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that your argument was about *the Constitution* it is another case of "Principle, what principle?" when it hurts the Right to adhere to it. The heirs of Jefferson in full in that sense.

How so? Hasn't at least one state passed a law making miscarriages a criminal offense?

I'm not sure that traitors like Calhoun and Davis are the ones the Right should embrace given their rhetoric on wanting to *preserve* the Union instead of destroying it. Once again, as with Mr. "Principled until it costs me something" Thomas Jefferson. And once again a bald-faced lie on the part of the movement's ideologues.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Given that your argument was about *the Constitution* it is another case of "Principle, what principle?" when it hurts the Right to adhere to it. The heirs of Jefferson in full in that sense.

You're not really grasping the point being made.

How so? Hasn't at least one state passed a law making miscarriages a criminal offense?

Yes. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

I'm not sure that traitors like Calhoun and Davis are the ones the Right should embrace given their rhetoric on wanting to *preserve* the Union instead of destroying it. Once again, as with Mr. "Principled until it costs me something" Thomas Jefferson. And once again a bald-faced lie on the part of the movement's ideologues.


i'm hearing this mythology about Jefferson a lot lately. Where's the root of it?

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What? That things like the 10th Amendment are politely enforced? From the same yokels who gunned down and lynched people who wanted the 14th to be enforced and used the 10th to justify it? Boo hoo.

That it's a transparent violation of civil rights?

That he was a strict constructionist until he realized that would prevent him from doubling the size of the USA so as to preserve his fantasyland of small slaveowning farmers. The precise moment he'dve shown himself to really *be* a man of principle he threw it under the T-34.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That it's a transparent violation of civil rights?

Not seeing it.

That he was a strict constructionist until he realized that would prevent him from doubling the size of the USA so as to preserve his fantasyland of small slaveowning farmers. The precise moment he'dve shown himself to really *be* a man of principle he threw it under the T-34.

Not really seeing that, either.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You do not see the risks of criminalizing miscarriages? Or the abuses that are going to come down the pike from it?

*shakes head.* At least Marxists *pretend* to live in the real world.

Nowhere in the Constitution of 1800 did it even come close to authorizing the Louisiana Purchase, at least under the Strict Constructionist argument. And people *at the time* said that, albeit the types that were usually all loose constructionists on other issues.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You do not see the risks of criminalizing miscarriages? Or the abuses that are going to come down the pike from it?

I've seen the arguments and I don't really think they're realistic.

Nowhere in the Constitution of 1800 did it even come close to authorizing the Louisiana Purchase, at least under the Strict Constructionist argument. And people *at the time* said that, albeit the types that were usually all loose constructionists on other issues.

The purchase was a treaty, which was well within Constitutional rights.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, actually, it was not within Constitutional rights. And he was a Strict Constructionist. His own party knew damned well that he'd monkeyed around with the rules. And this is without noting as Exiledv2 did below that for a man that talked a good game about liberty he never lost sleep over making money from and babies with his slaves.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not agreeing with you on that. What he did probably wasn't in the spirit of the document, but well within the letter.

Re: Huh buh what-a?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So the myth is long standing. Ah well, add it to my list.