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

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Come on old thing....as one Brit to another, we do have other forms of participation.

It is very true that Brown is unelected, but there have been very recent precedents for such. The economic situation is pretty poor, though despite lagging behind much of Europe, we still don't have the level of debt of France or Germany.* Which is something we don't hear the Murdoch Press trumpeting very much. (Though I'm sure that the press wouldn't object to civil rebellion if it sold newspapers.)

Disillusioned, yes, I can go with that. Distrustful of every party: to a certain extent. But in reality we have to decide which pig is best in this poke, and Osborne scares the shit out of me in comparison to Darling when it comes to dealing with this mess: and alas, I don't think Cable will be Chancellor unless there is a hung parliament, which might actually be best for the Nation, but is looking increasingly unlikely given the Tory lead in the polls.


*http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/

[wsdante.livejournal.com]

Good points, well made, J.
The Murdoch point chimes in, I think, with my previous point b.

I think the available choice is an important factor. We now have two right of centre parties who have proven utterly untrustworthy and, dare I resurrect a long-neglected term, dishonourable, and one centre-ish party.
Like you say, it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil, as ever.
I think the difference is that, recently, the evil has been so much more 'in yer face'.
Whatever the outcome, we so, SO need to kick Brown into the long grass. He's been so out of his depth for so long I'm always surprised to see him without an aqualung!