I Told You So! | Clarissa's Blog
I’m not actually sure how as very small or a nonexistent government could be compatible with individual responsibility either. Actually, the market model of individual responsibility has to recognize its logical limits, because otherwise it just becomes farcical. To give you some idea, near the gym where I train, a new center has opened up that uses the market model of success to “help” disabled, unemployed people. Their website proclaims that they offer twenty grand a year to a disabled person who can come up with a feasible “plan” to improve their quality of life. “Present your business plan, and if it’s very clever, we will access some money somehow, and it will be yours.”
It should be obvious that this seems to be encouraging cleverness and individualism, but isn’t. The money probably doesn’t even exist. The demand that disabled people should show their imaginative (or imaginary) skills by leaping though hips is not that marvy.
‘Similarly, the language of business is imposed on those who have absolutely no CAPITAL — the leverage required under CAPITALism to get ahead. Unemployed people are required to enter into a “mutual obligation” to get a few crumbs from the system; enough to live on (almost). The assumption that people who have no money are also capitalists, who can choose to enter a contractual agreement, on the basis of mutuality, is ludicrous. It makes everything seem false and phony.
Government has a job to do and that is to assure that people don’t starve, en masse, under bridges. Government should not have to dress itself up with corporate language and form imaginary constructs, like “job search centers”, in order to justify its existence. Let people search for jobs on the Internet, according to their free will. But also, don’t play games with them, treating them as if they were capitalist players when they’re not. Every human being deserves enough money to live on.
“Hope I’m not attacked for sounding elitist.. just really struggling to see a large govt. can be compatible with individual responsibility.”
I’m not actually sure how as very small or a nonexistent government could be compatible with individual responsibility either. Actually, the market model of individual responsibility has to recognize its logical limits, because otherwise it just becomes farcical. To give you some idea, near the gym where I train, a new center has opened up that uses the market model of success to “help” disabled, unemployed people. Their website proclaims that they offer twenty grand a year to a disabled person who can come up with a feasible “plan” to improve their quality of life. “Present your business plan, and if it’s very clever, we will access some money somehow, and it will be yours.”
It should be obvious that this seems to be encouraging cleverness and individualism, but isn’t. The money probably doesn’t even exist. The demand that disabled people should show their imaginative (or imaginary) skills by leaping though hips is not that marvy.
‘Similarly, the language of business is imposed on those who have absolutely no CAPITAL — the leverage required under CAPITALism to get ahead. Unemployed people are required to enter into a “mutual obligation” to get a few crumbs from the system; enough to live on (almost). The assumption that people who have no money are also capitalists, who can choose to enter a contractual agreement, on the basis of mutuality, is ludicrous. It makes everything seem false and phony.
Government has a job to do and that is to assure that people don’t starve, en masse, under bridges. Government should not have to dress itself up with corporate language and form imaginary constructs, like “job search centers”, in order to justify its existence. Let people search for jobs on the Internet, according to their free will. But also, don’t play games with them, treating them as if they were capitalist players when they’re not. Every human being deserves enough money to live on.
No comments:
Post a Comment