Mix-exam update: things seem to be going well. The first day I answered a question on mixed regimes. Today, I did one on liberalism and democracy. I feel... lucky (?). I've been interested in things like civil society, democratic theory, and republicanism for a while now - and these questions played right into my strengths (and the tone of my reading list). So, I've felt OK about my answers (or, as OK as you can feel with 8 hours to work in and 3500 works to play with). I'm cautiously optimistic; I don't want to jinx it. However, I *am* exhausted. I'll be glad when it's done. Tomorrow is it; that brings "modern republicanism" - my "specialty" area. My worry: The questions will be super-specific and hard [they're been fairly general so far]. We shall see. The worst is over I think, for good or ill.
Part of why I'm updating is to sort of rant a bit. I'm not sure if people have seen that the president figures he can pay for hurricane disaster relief without raising taxes. Though, of course, this does mean cutting other programs.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is some pork that can be trimmed (though, remember: It's only "pork" when it's the *other* guy's project right? Think on that). And of course, trying times might give us cause to tighten up on our belts some. Sure. BUT - the notion that he cut taxes before, then got us into a war, and NOW will pay for disaster releif ALL without even raising taxes? It's just ridiculous.
It's particularly distressing because Bush is now using this rhetoric that racial and class inequalities are a real problem that have to be addressed. I've even heard of some relief efforts that would involve getting land, as in *owning* that land, to the poor and helping them rebuild. What an awesome idea. [Though, it is not always HOUSES that the poor need. Usually it's more things like job skills and accessibility to jobs. But whatever, this is a start. And of course, property taxes could be a problem. If taxes and utilties are too high, people just lose the property. But it's an ATTEMPT, a *beginning* at least.] Of course, though, what difference do these efforts to establish equality and make progress in the war on poverty matter when you're going to cut other programs, presumably some of which help those same poor people you now claim you want to aid? The lunacy of it all boggles the mind. Either this administration lacks *any* sense of interdependence, or they just want to find newer, trickier ways to screw poor people and "break the government."
In fact, it's really the latter idea - particularly the notion that the goal is to indirectly shrink the state (and thus end its leveling efforts) by essentially spending till its broke - that seems right on. It is, in essence, an end to collective goods, one of the *primary reasons* we develop a state in the first place. Ultimately, we seem bound for a society where only elites get services - because they can afford to pay for such "luxuries" themselves.
Why have such a pessimistic attitude? Lots of reasons, most recently the fact that the federal government is looking for donations to help pay for rebuilding Iraq! I mean, seriously! Charity is a great - but this was a *state* endeavor; fuck, I'm already throwing my taxes in...
Now, if we want to apocalyptic.... The danger here is that you have a state that responds to those who pay, flat out. In other words, we don't fight wars we endorse as a polity - we fight wars we're willing to pay for. Now, at first glance, this might sound sort of OK. After all, if an idea sucks, no one pays for it... That's OK right? Wrong. That's market ideology getting you all confused. The problem is that those with more dollars have more votes. First you might only build infrastructure for the rich (or, you get the infrastructure the rich are willing to pay for: lots of interstates to move goods, no schools). Then, you get (overtly) the state only fighting the wars that the rich endorse. The good thing about democratic politics is that it, in theory, gives everyone the same voice. There is an intrinsic idea of equality to democracy. Once you start soliciting donations, that changes - the individuals and groups who pony up are the ones that get served; the whole collective endeavor is down the toliet.
Sure, it's a bit *extreme* from one isolated policy. I admit that. But it's something we need to be wary of. Democracy demands vigilance.
That's enough conspiracy theory for now. I need to do my laundry and rest up to finish off exams. Later on.
Part of why I'm updating is to sort of rant a bit. I'm not sure if people have seen that the president figures he can pay for hurricane disaster relief without raising taxes. Though, of course, this does mean cutting other programs.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is some pork that can be trimmed (though, remember: It's only "pork" when it's the *other* guy's project right? Think on that). And of course, trying times might give us cause to tighten up on our belts some. Sure. BUT - the notion that he cut taxes before, then got us into a war, and NOW will pay for disaster releif ALL without even raising taxes? It's just ridiculous.
It's particularly distressing because Bush is now using this rhetoric that racial and class inequalities are a real problem that have to be addressed. I've even heard of some relief efforts that would involve getting land, as in *owning* that land, to the poor and helping them rebuild. What an awesome idea. [Though, it is not always HOUSES that the poor need. Usually it's more things like job skills and accessibility to jobs. But whatever, this is a start. And of course, property taxes could be a problem. If taxes and utilties are too high, people just lose the property. But it's an ATTEMPT, a *beginning* at least.] Of course, though, what difference do these efforts to establish equality and make progress in the war on poverty matter when you're going to cut other programs, presumably some of which help those same poor people you now claim you want to aid? The lunacy of it all boggles the mind. Either this administration lacks *any* sense of interdependence, or they just want to find newer, trickier ways to screw poor people and "break the government."
In fact, it's really the latter idea - particularly the notion that the goal is to indirectly shrink the state (and thus end its leveling efforts) by essentially spending till its broke - that seems right on. It is, in essence, an end to collective goods, one of the *primary reasons* we develop a state in the first place. Ultimately, we seem bound for a society where only elites get services - because they can afford to pay for such "luxuries" themselves.
Why have such a pessimistic attitude? Lots of reasons, most recently the fact that the federal government is looking for donations to help pay for rebuilding Iraq! I mean, seriously! Charity is a great - but this was a *state* endeavor; fuck, I'm already throwing my taxes in...
Now, if we want to apocalyptic.... The danger here is that you have a state that responds to those who pay, flat out. In other words, we don't fight wars we endorse as a polity - we fight wars we're willing to pay for. Now, at first glance, this might sound sort of OK. After all, if an idea sucks, no one pays for it... That's OK right? Wrong. That's market ideology getting you all confused. The problem is that those with more dollars have more votes. First you might only build infrastructure for the rich (or, you get the infrastructure the rich are willing to pay for: lots of interstates to move goods, no schools). Then, you get (overtly) the state only fighting the wars that the rich endorse. The good thing about democratic politics is that it, in theory, gives everyone the same voice. There is an intrinsic idea of equality to democracy. Once you start soliciting donations, that changes - the individuals and groups who pony up are the ones that get served; the whole collective endeavor is down the toliet.
Sure, it's a bit *extreme* from one isolated policy. I admit that. But it's something we need to be wary of. Democracy demands vigilance.
That's enough conspiracy theory for now. I need to do my laundry and rest up to finish off exams. Later on.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
I hear what you're saying about Bush. It's eerie having him spout forth New Deal era lingo about poverty - but I think we both know there's absolutely no substance to it. He's "tabled" the estate tax repeal for the moment, but he hasn't dismissed it. I'm sure when hurricane season is a distant memory in people's minds we'll start hearing about the evils of "double taxation" and how the estate tax hurts "family farms" all over again.
I can understand how the libertarian notion of a small state would have thrived in the era that, say, Rand was writing, when the bureaucratic, faceless behemoth of the USSR was a real thing. But the US government has been so effective in so many different areas I can't see how that sort of small-govenrment philosophy still has as many adherents as it does.
Wow! How cool would that be? The section with the Flashes and the Supermen across my shoulders or something?? There you go giving me ideas now!!
For about 25 years, I have been apeshit for just about anything considered to be "Earth 2" in nature. I love me some JSA!