tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post2493067358411096843..comments2023-10-10T05:07:13.577-07:00Comments on En Tequila Es Verdad: Happy Hour DiscursoDana Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-4993029293868891412009-02-28T14:02:00.000-08:002009-02-28T14:02:00.000-08:00"This is one of those strange stories in which Dem...<I>"This is one of those strange stories in which Democrats want to spend less money and make a federal system more efficient, and conservatives are livid."</I><BR/><BR/>A possible insight into the conservative mind here, for which that story is supporting evidence.<BR/><BR/>In a civilization where:<BR/>* most of the easily-exploitable resources have been snapped up ("purchased" -- from whom?) by certain interests...<BR/>* ...thus making it almost impossible, now, to make a reasonable living <I>without</I> obtaining a certain highly-prized type of connection to those interests (a "real job")<BR/>* ...even though those interests are often very reluctant to establish such connections, especially in times of economic crisis<BR/>* ...and yet these resources are sufficient to produce a huge surplus for those interests...<BR/>* ...who then trade that surplus for units of value (money)...<BR/>* ...of which they then have so much that they can live in a manner which we would consider "luxurious" while spending only a small fraction of it...<BR/><BR/>...that it simply doesn't make sense to oppose welfare for those who otherwise couldn't afford basic necessities, due to the short supply of "jobs" and the oversupply of basic necessities. (Example: how does it make sense that people are being kicked out of their houses <I>and there is also an oversupply</I> of houses, many of them freshly-built in brand-new subdivisions?)<BR/><BR/>In other words, you <I>have</I> to have some way of spreading basic wealth around, so that it isn't just the Major Resource Owners who have some (while everyone else works for them or starves). We have to have <I>some form of welfare</I> if we are going to avoid imposing unacceptable and unnecessary hardship on a big chunk of the population.<BR/><BR/>Legislatively encouraging layers of "entrepreneurship" to perform work which would be done more efficiently without such layers, thereby providing enough "jobs" so that everyone (in theory) gets enough to live on, could be seen as a viable alternative solution -- call it "capitalist welfare" (although to me it actually sounds a lot more like the make-work bureaucracies of Soviet Russia... but I digress).<BR/><BR/>As such, one could argue that it's as good or perhaps better than the traditional government-to-enduser welfare system; individuals have to actually show up and contribute substantially in order to receive their handouts, thus discouraging cheating and the dreaded "<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen" REL="nofollow">welfare queen</A>" syndrome, and keeping workers primed for more useful work, should any turn up.<BR/><BR/><B>Point being</B>: conservatives see this kind of "inefficiency" as being <I>for the public good</I>. (Yeah, I know, I'm probably giving cons too much credit for being well-meaning. Still, something like this thought-process may play a role in the chaotic miasma that is the conservative worldview, and as such it may be helpful for us to understand it.)<BR/><BR/>This could be well and fine, but for a few things:<BR/><BR/>(1) the corrupting influence of industries (of which the student loan biz is just one example) whose existence depends entirely on <I>continuing to be paid to do something which nobody needs them to be doing</I>;<BR/><BR/>(2) the inherent dishonesty of making it look like a service is being provided, value is being added, when in fact it's basically just busywork (<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Tollbooth" REL="nofollow">The Terrible Trivium</A> comes inescapably to mind);<BR/><BR/>(3) the pointlessness of making people spend their time doing something useless when they could be doing something useful instead (note: "useful" does not necessarily imply "money-making", especially given the circumstances as described above)<BR/><BR/>(4) the sort of mentality which happily exploits a system which rewards people for doing pointless work is, I should think, not a mentality we want to encourage.<BR/><BR/>(Ok, that's my ramble. Hoping to get back to The Great Debate soonish; still wrapping up the loose ends of my deadline project, and no I shouldn't even be posting this...)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.com