![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
left-wing/right-wing bare bones
To me, the left vs. right debate boils down to co-operation vs. competition.
“We should help each other out” vs. “Every man for himself”.
To me, human society is by its very nature co-operative. Society first came into existence when two cavemen got together and realized that they could get more done by working together and helping each other out, than they could do individually. Our daily lives are only possible in their current form because of our support net built out of the co-operation of thousands or millions of our fellow citizens.
Therefore, to me, any political system that doesn't actively support co-operation and helping each other out, is by its very nature anti-social.
Granted, when we help each other out (and, by extension, share), some of us end up with less that we could amass if left to our own devices. So I can understand why those who are primarily interested in how much they can get for themselves, might not be as interested in co-operating. But, again: anti-social.
Just sayin.
BTW, I'm planning to limit my political venting to today only, in the aftermath of last night's election. After this, I'm all about comics and unpopular music again!
no subject
no subject
True.
What if the cavemen think about "getting things done" in different timeframes, though? That's part of the trick too.
If the value created is instant and penalty-free, then helping leads to the best outcome.
Example: A kid whose Dad gave him ten chocolate bars -- more than he needs -- gives one to his chocolate-craving friend, who has none. Both are happier.
If, however, the value created is slower to manifest, and/or carries a significant penalty, things get more complicated.
Example: A kid who worked hard for four years to get straight As in high school (to get into a great college) does not want to have to give his As to kids who slacked off and have lousy GPAs (so they can get into college). This system penalizes excellence, rewards indolence, and leads to a worse outcome.
Both these perspectives have merit, I think. In US terms, you could label the first perspective Progressive and the second one Conservative.
In creating public policy, it's difficult finding a balance between helping people who need help (the progressive goal) and killing the cultural incentive to excel, and with it, excellence (the conservative fear).
no subject
- I'm wondering if a mash-up of your examples might not be very close to the reality:
A kid who works hard and earns ten chocolate bars, and then his dad takes away two of them (20% is pretty close to what I pay in income taxes once my annual return is completed and all deductions and rebates are figured in), to redistribute to his sibs. Some of whom earned less than ten, perhaps some of whom earned none whatsoever. (However, since the kid isn't really close to his sibs, he doesn't know why those sibs earned none, but he has his suspicions.) Meanwhile, Dad also melts some of the chocolate down to craft exquisite molded treats, some of which he gives back to ten-bars kid but definitely not ten-bars worth.
Meanwhile, Karl Marx would argue that ten-bars kid didn't work hard at all, he was merely lucky enough to own a chocolate-bar factory...
- affirmative action is a way of addressing your second scenario, one which claims that “slacking off” is not the reason why some of these kids have lousy GPAs. Whether or not their argument is persuasive is another (subjective) matter.
As you said, it's complicated, and yes, striking a balance between “providing help where needed” and “penalizing excellence” is very difficult. Unless you're Ayn Rand, in which case the decision is simplicity itself. :P
no subject
They go to (for instance) banks, whose poor risk management (empowered by reduced/eliminated government regulations) yielded a fiscal catastrophe... or to a defense industry which is seven times larger, by chocolate bars allocated per year, than the US's nearest military rival (China).
I am, essentially, a progressive with conservative fiscal tendencies, but I would still like to see a change in these priorities. If it were up to me, goverment would provide a very basic standard of living for all citizens -- the rough equivalent of an economy apartment, food, and medical expenses. Excellence would remain the best way to transcend that basic existence.
affirmative action is a way of addressing your second scenario
It was meant to be, but isn't, at least in the US. This is because it focuses on race, a very theoretical yardstick of need, when it should focus on actual economic need -- in specific cases and not giant groups -- as well as identifying and eliminating inconsistencies and shortcomings in public education.
But I think you will agree with me that every high school is indeed full of slacker kids who do not take the coursework seriously... and that that has little or nothing to do with race. It applies to kids of every race; it's simply a failure to take the future seriously and plan and act. And no school I have ever heard of has moved to a system of grade redistribution, because the administrators know better.
no subject
The hallmark of a Canadian conservative is his fear that a bar might go to a person who doesn't really need it (in his own internal axiomatic evaluation). When you mention “government handouts”, they don't think of corporate bailouts -- they immediately assume you're discussing welfare, a scary word which always has “cheats” welded onto its back end. Our conservatives are horrified that welfare even exists. (They're less vocal on the subject of bank bailouts, mainly because those didn't affect us so much.)
Stephen Harper already has plans to crack down on how “easy” it currently is for Canadians without jobs to get money from the government. It's still a hot issue up here.
Speaking from my own experience, I applied for welfare once, back in 1980. I had been unemployed for months, my employment insurance and savings were running out, no one would hire me for an entry-level job because my BA overqualified me, and I was desperate.
They wouldn't give it to me. I forget exactly why I didn't qualify for it, but I didn't. At that time, it didn't seem to me like it was so “easy” to get money from the government, or like it was such an easy system to defraud. So I'm not sure where people get this idea...
“If it were up to me, goverment would provide a very basic standard of living for all citizens”
Same here: but that makes us very bad conservatives. In fact, it makes us commies.
“I think you will agree with me that every high school is indeed full of slacker kids”
Absolutely.
“no school I have ever heard of has moved to a system of grade redistribution”
No, but they do have a system of offering bare passing grades that haven't been earned, simply to move the kid on up and out of their hair.
no subject
Oh, I wouldn't say that.
Marx's concept was this: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Well, that's adorable. It's never going to work for many reasons.
My concept is a lot less ambitious: leave capitalism the hell alone, and instead reprioritize investment to get a better result.
For instance, we can continue to optimize our horrible healthcare system so that instead of spending 17% of GDP, and climbing rapidly, we spend more like 10%, and keep that figure stable.
That is what every other Western nation has already done. That alone would be a staggering coup for fiscal conservatives (who, in the end, are all about accomplishing more with fewer resources -- making money work in a smarter way).
We can also stop spending so f-ing much on defense, especially when it's so often used for offense (invading other nations that haven't provoked action and rebuilding them as we see fit, etc).
With those savings, it would be a relatively simple matter to ensure that no American is homeless, no American starves, and no American is denied a college education because the bill is too steep.
That's not communism. That's just smart money management.
they do have a system of offering bare passing grades that haven't been earned
This exists in the US, but is usually associated with the unusual case (athletes who make the school look good). And so far from being a system, it's the sort of thing that can get a college into deep trouble with the NCAA.