Yes, Mommy: A Well-Regulated State

Fred on Everything ^ | 15 September 2002 | Fred Reed

[SBeck]

Fred on target and loaded for bear. Fire away.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"1984" arrived and nobody even noticed.

Walt

[SBeck]

More like "Blade Runner".

"You know what you are if you're not us, Decker? Little people."

[SBeck]

My bad.

"Stop right where you are. You know the score pal. If you're not cop, you're little people."

And it was Deckard, not Decker.

[El Gato]

the confiscation from an aging general of his Congressional Medal of Honor because it had points

Make that attempted confiscation. General Foss wasn't about to let 'em take. They're lucky he didn't beat 'em to a bloody pulp with his cane. :)

[Great Dane]

It wasn't always this way....... oh, for a return to the good old days, when you could speak your mind and do as you pleased as long as no one else got hurt.

[WindMinstrel]

ping. Fred's good today

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And we obey. We are the obedient people.

That's because for many of us, life is too good. Heaven forbid if the economy really goes south . . .

[WindMinstrel]

What would a bad economy have to do with our cultivated obedience?

[TomSmedley]

It is the exercise of power by people who have no business having any.

And we obey. We are the obedient people.

It starts in grade school, when you have to ask permission before using the bathroom. Start and stop thinking on command, and only about the commanded block of information. (the material being studied is irrelevent, as long as the habit of obedient thinking is mastered.)

However, the first wave of home-educated adults is hitting the scene, with millions more behind 'em. Folks not trained in habits of obedience to bureaucrats. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

What would a bad economy have to do with our cultivated obedience?

The article bemoans the petty oppressiveness we've come to accept as normal with a tone that suggests, to me anyway, that "we" (society) should do something about it. I submit the only time we, as a society, would actually do something about it is when we start to go hungry. As long as economic needs are being met, societies can withstand just about anything. Precipitating most world-class revolutions were dismal economic conditions---in which basic needs weren't being met.

[WindMinstrel]

Good point -- as long as we have our bread and circuses we'll be happy. That's accurate, really -- I know that if I weren't so well-off I'd be a much bigger pain in the tookus to our masters.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The ultimate irony, I think, is that outside of sheer despotism, the real enemy of liberty is prosperity.

[Neckbone]

I agree with the tone of what you're saying, but not the entire point. I think that prosperity offers those with the ability the time and tools necessary to affect change. In times of hunger the atmosphere is ripe for revolt, true- but the aim of the revolt at that point is not to gain liberty. I think that it is only during times of plenty that the members of any society who have the requisite talent can produce the fruits of that talent, whether it be art, poetry, or liberty. The only thing lacking in times of prosperity is a clear and common focus.

[WindMinstrel]

How would good focus change anything? By and large the rules we live by are those of the bureaucracy; few of the really rediculous laws were passed by real lawmakers. The bureaucrats work to justify their existance (and increase their "importance") by passing more and more rules. Furthermore, they can't even be fired, so we get an increasing powerbase of self-justifying rules-makers.

What happens when you start to chip away at the powerbase of these faceless bureaucrats? They start fighting back, of course. Look at what's happening in the war on drugs -- as soon as you publically challenge it you're tarred as being "soft on crime". Try to reduce the volume of rules for, say, the highway safety administration, and you're tagged as voting in favor of vehicle rollovers. The cycle continues.

I would suggest that it doesn't matter how focused you are because of the stupidity of the populace. They don't want to think through the war on drugs -- they just want to know that Senator Bubba is working to keep thier chilluns safe. Sure, the price of cars is going up, but Congressman Joe-bob is telling them he's working to keep the highways safe.

How do you root out stuff like that?

[Woahhs]

I submit the rise of the "mommy state" is very much concurrent with the political enfranchisement of the mommies. Can the differing aspirations of the sexes be denied?

[Under the Radar]

I submit the rise of the "mommy state" is very much concurrent with the political enfranchisement of the mommies. Can the differing aspirations of the sexes be denied?

No.

Will people have an honest discussion about this?

No.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I think that prosperity offers those with the ability the time and tools necessary to affect change.

I disagree. Prosperity hints that change isn't necessary. During times of prosperity, things work. People are satisfied. Nobody's going to risk a full belly, a comfortable lifestyle, and a bright future over fighting arcane and negligable law like the type this article mentions---over something that seems academic. All that rubbish is middle class blues at best, and the middle class blues is real luxury to most people.

Change---especially revolutionary change---only comes when the result of doing nothing is more starvation. Revolutionary change occurs when people are desperate. Well-fed, well-clothed, well-apportioned people are not desperate.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I submit the rise of the "mommy state" is very much concurrent with the political enfranchisement of the mommies. Can the differing aspirations of the sexes be denied?

You won't get an argument from me.

[Woahhs]

I was at least hoping for a fruitful discussion on the character and identifying marks of political cognitive dissonance.