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

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Nah, I'm fine with openly challenging the system.


And I'm one person with one voice and one vote; to get things changed in a country of millions one must build a coalition of the willing, who will change a couple things.


"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. Indeed, they are the only thing that has."

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Okay, so you openly challenge the system. And before you get shot and/or imprisoned like the syndicalists and everyone else who actually threatened to accomplish any social revolution in this country did, you'll come in conflict with the government, while being allied with (or at least neutral to) the people.

I guess you can say the state is empowered and chosen by the people in the sense that they haven't risen up in revolt already, but that's a pretty negative kind of empowerment. The state responds to all kinds of threats that menace the bureaucracy as an entity without ever making any sign they might harm the people - see also essentially every foreign military action we've engaged in except WW2 and the couple times we shot a cruise missile at al Qaeda members. These aren't neutral actions towards the masses either, the people - as in, actual people, living in this country, we know their names and everything - are killed every time the state goes to war. Yet officially or not we have been at war constantly with somebody or other since the country's founding.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]