Tuesday, January 12, 2010
You can 'aspire', but don't you dare achieve - Telegraph
The ideas described in this article are by no means exclusive to the U.K.
Elected officials think they know what's best, and, if we're not careful, they'll use all of our money, to "take care" of us.
History tells us what a "good" job they'll do...
In the U.K. Telegraph, Janet Daley writes about it:
"Whatever you do, don't try to take your fate into your own hands, or to make articulate, forceful representations on behalf of yourself and your loved ones – that would be 'pushy' and selfish. You must put your trust in the Government's all-seeing beneficence, which will provide 'fair' opportunities to everyone equally, even if their talents, attitudes and efforts vary wildly. As an ideology, this is deeply confused and self-contradictory. As practical politics, it is pernicious, and it reaches into the furthest corners of Labour policy. On public services, for example, Mr Brown is eager to tell us that he embraces consumer power: 'not uniform services, but personal services, tailored to your need and your aspirations.' Then he goes on to give a list of Government-dictated objectives which will be enforced across the board: a national care service for the elderly, a guarantee of early cancer diagnosis, compulsory modern language teaching in primary schools. And he tops off this set of nationwide edicts with the promise that 'we will always ensure that you get the individual excellent services you need to make the most of your life'. Does Mr Brown know what the word 'individual' means? Suppose that I don't want compulsory foreign language teaching at primary level? Maybe I would prefer accelerated maths teaching. What if regular coronary scans would be of more personal help to me than a concentration on cancer diagnosis? Do I get any choice in the priorities of these supposedly 'individual excellent services'?"
