![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLet'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?
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?
(no subject)
Date: 5/4/10 01:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/4/10 01:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/4/10 01:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/4/10 01:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/4/10 02:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 01:07 (UTC)It has nothing to do with that.
Neoconservatives are conservative.
No, they're not. The entire root is within the left.
Paleoconservatives are conservative.
Yup.
Theoconservatives are conservatives.
"Theoconservative" is a derogatory term used by folks who don't really like what is more commonly called the "religious right." In reality, being religious does not necessarily indicate political ideology.
All are branches of the same philosophy.
And that's where I disagree. Conservatism is at odds with the type of authoritarianism that so-called "social conservatism" requires, and that's why I've called it a misnomer.