I guess that to me it's just self evident that everyone would want to live in a country where nobody ran the risk of starving in the street or dying for lack of money to pay for medicine. I mean, stuff like that is what government is *for* - protecting the people who live in that country. And let's face it, rugged individualism is fine in a country where you can live off the land, but in this day and age we all depend entirely on the labour of others for all our needs.
I might also point out that in my experience, at least, the objections you refer to are often raised by people who have never been in a position of true financial desperation - where they were cut off from help by family, unable to get a job, and no or low savings all coalescing at the same time.
If that's in reply to my comment, and not Alex's, I agree, most of the people who hold this philosopy--especially the most rigorously idealistic ones--have never had to face the choice of living on the street and going to bed hungry every night or applying for government assistance.
Well, it was to her comment, because she doesn't live here. But anyone can read and reply. :-)
I'm sure somewhere there's someone who lived in desperation, who received assistance, who doesn't want others to have access to those resources. But I don't want to meet them.
But for the people I'm talking about (the unsuccessful ones) this is more like an article of faith than a rational, well-thought-out position. They sincerely believe the country would be better off with less government--possibly no government--than it has now. And at the same time, they'd probably be horrified if all the government-funded services in their communities disappeared. No police, no fire protection, no public libraries, no more carefully-maintained softball diamonds at public parks, no public schools, no state colleges, no street repair, no sewage treatment plants or water line maintenance, etc.
It's a particular form of selective vision combined with self-righteousness; a whole range of quietly useful government-provided services (see above) are conveniently ignored while they complain about the relatively small portion of the nation's tax dollars that go to programs they morally disapprove of.
What about those who shun social services and welfare, but are all for increased defense spending? If we don't have a healthy and educated populace, what the hell is there to defend?
My guess is that it must be a very attractive position for a lot of people, but it's one of those things over which I just have to shake my head and realize the limits of my understanding only go so far. I didn't understand Thatcherism when that happened, either, but it obviously resonated strongly with a lot of people. I suppose that while you're reasonably well off yourself it must be attractive to have a philosophy which enables you to keep more of your money for yourself and not feel guilty about it.
But, since everybody's not that well off - especially now, and there's still so much resistance to "socialist" ideas that could benefit even those who hate the idea - there must be a reason the not-so-well-off support a system against their own financial interests. Which is why I came up with this hypothesis years ago: I call it starfucking.
As I understand, the term usually refers to trying to associate with celebrities, or pretending to, to get oneself ahead or elevate oneself in the eyes of others. In this case, I use "starfucking" to denote those who will likely never have the money of, say, Warren Buffett - but the notion is in their heads that someday they MIGHT. So, in that slender off-chance, they would not have to want to "give away" so much of their hard-earned fortune to the little people who didn't do as much hard work, and don't deserve it.
(Of course, it's also my postulation that these people never take into account HOW the self-made rich come by their money. Buffett did it trading on the stock market - which is entirely built upon the fortunes of companies, which in turn depend on the productivity and ideas of their employees ... i.e., a lot of those "little people." Likewise, look at someone like Bill Gates, whose fortune I don't begrudge a bit - but, he GOT that money from all of us buying his products. I don't think it's too much to ask he kick in a higher-than-normal share to help keep us healthy and educated. After all, the dead and ignorant have no use for computers.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 09:31 pm (UTC)I'm sure somewhere there's someone who lived in desperation, who received assistance, who doesn't want others to have access to those resources. But I don't want to meet them.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 06:02 pm (UTC)You know that.
But for the people I'm talking about (the unsuccessful ones) this is more like an article of faith than a rational, well-thought-out position. They sincerely believe the country would be better off with less government--possibly no government--than it has now. And at the same time, they'd probably be horrified if all the government-funded services in their communities disappeared. No police, no fire protection, no public libraries, no more carefully-maintained softball diamonds at public parks, no public schools, no state colleges, no street repair, no sewage treatment plants or water line maintenance, etc.
It's a particular form of selective vision combined with self-righteousness; a whole range of quietly useful government-provided services (see above) are conveniently ignored while they complain about the relatively small portion of the nation's tax dollars that go to programs they morally disapprove of.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 03:22 pm (UTC)As I understand, the term usually refers to trying to associate with celebrities, or pretending to, to get oneself ahead or elevate oneself in the eyes of others. In this case, I use "starfucking" to denote those who will likely never have the money of, say, Warren Buffett - but the notion is in their heads that someday they MIGHT. So, in that slender off-chance, they would not have to want to "give away" so much of their hard-earned fortune to the little people who didn't do as much hard work, and don't deserve it.
(Of course, it's also my postulation that these people never take into account HOW the self-made rich come by their money. Buffett did it trading on the stock market - which is entirely built upon the fortunes of companies, which in turn depend on the productivity and ideas of their employees ... i.e., a lot of those "little people." Likewise, look at someone like Bill Gates, whose fortune I don't begrudge a bit - but, he GOT that money from all of us buying his products. I don't think it's too much to ask he kick in a higher-than-normal share to help keep us healthy and educated. After all, the dead and ignorant have no use for computers.)